@halofreak1990: What are you talking about? Games have definitely become more expensive. Where are you getting the idea that they cost the same as before?
Look at how big Red Dead Redemption was, then look at how much bigger the sequel is. Are you trying to say they both cost the same to make?
@atherworld: exactly. The grayness is too much in DC. I don't mind it when it's appropriate but in DC, there's always fucking clouds. The Dark Knight movies used NIGHT because it's appropriate for Batman. Even the Arkham series got it right.
I wish there was more to Superman and Batman than just always being depressed.
It feels like DC is trying to get a noir style vibe, but they're failing at it.
@Thanatos2k: Like I said, the money isn't solely for Overwatch. The game is 80% of Blizzard's revenue. They need to fund current games, future games, advertisement (ad campaigns cost millions), numerous offices, and other expenses.
Team Fortress 2 is a horrible example. A ten year old game wouldn't cost as much to make. It's also owned by Valve Corporation, which owns Steam, one of the biggest distributors of PC games. TF2 can lose money and it'd still be up because of the fact that Steam is a money machine.
Why does Blizzard get so much hate from you when almost every other AAA game has scummier ways to get money? Its entirely optional.
@Thanatos2k: What's the massive percentage? I'd like to know what you consider massive. 1% can be considered massive since that's 300,000 copies so you're just playing loose with word choice.
Also, you keep using a straw man. I didn't say they didn't make a lot of money from sales.
This is all I'm saying and nothing more: Overwatch, just like the MAJORITY of other games, has microtransactions for continued profits and support of Overwatch.
Also, Blizzard has other stuff besides Overwatch. You know that, right? Right? That money goes to other multi-million dollar games that exist and future multi-million dollar games.
Honestly, get rid of your tunnel vision and look at the bigger picture. You have no idea how a business works. Do you have a grudge against Blizzard? They are doing microtransactions better than most devs.
You get Fallout 4. Season pass is $40 or something. Then you have paid mods. So if you want to access the full game, it's $100 and if you want mods, it costs money.
You get Battlefield 1. Season pass is $50 I think. Weapons, maps, and vehicles are in the DLC. Then there's literally $10 microtransactions for every class to fully level it up as a "shortcut."
What about Dead or Alive? Outrageous amounts of DLC. I think $700 or more.
But no, Blizzard is the worst of all of them because they actually include all their maps, characters, and skins for the $40 buy-in. You do know loot boxes are optional, right? I have a bunch of rare skins and I've only played a few months. Most players are patient and are willing to work for what they want.
Blizzard is a business that needs money. They have 4,700 employees. Even if they all made $50,000 (which is a little above entry level for a big business) that's over $200 million a year. Then they have offices in 11 cities.
The game accounts for 80% of their revenue. But hey businesses should run out of money just because a few whiny spastics can't control their spending.
@Thanatos2k: Again, you ignored what I previously said.
-Some stores that sell physical games will open new games and pass them off as used, which allows the stores to keep 100% of the profit. Any new game sales get only a small percentage of that $60.
-All platforms have pretty good sales. Many players get games only on sale. Overwatch has been on sale numberous times since release.
-Even on digital purchases, the publisher receives less than $60. I know Sony takes like 40% of the profit.
Most importantly, the game needs to keep a steady income. Let's say that Overwatch stays a hit for years. That's years of paying a 100 man dev team, bills for the buildings they're located in, running servers in several continents, and other stuff. Now that Overwatch sales are slowing down, they've pretty much received the majority of their sales money.
https://youtu.be/oSiwX27QwRI This guy explains it pretty good
First off, game development has only gotten more expensive than it was 15 years ago, while game prices have remained the same. You're trying to tell me that this game is worth the same as games made 10 years ago?
Second, game devs are making less money on physical copies now more than ever. Stores like GameStop give a percentage of new game sales revenue to developers, however these stores have gotten around that by opening new games and selling them as used, which lets them keep all the profit.
Why do you think even AAA games rely on lootboxes, half assed DLC, pay to win mechanics, and impulse spending? Games are expensive to make.
Do you even work in gaming? I create 3D models and animations as a hobby. It takes weeks to create even one character model at the level of quality expected in 2017.
You ignore the facts that I tell you and just go straight to attacking anything that wasn't meticulous enough to be understood in black & white.
-You had no clue what marketing teams actually do.
-You pretended that I disagreed on the fact that Overwatch relies on impulse spending. I do agree on that.
-I implicitly answered your question correctly and your response was to attack me for not explicitly answering your question.
I have no clue why you're being so hostile towards me and arguing for no reason. Do you feel the need to start arguments to establish superiority or something? Nothing I said was a lie.
Let me rephrase it so you can't misunderstand.
Games are expensive to make. Keeping successful, growing games running is expensive. Companies also need to make money. Blizzard does loot boxes because they rely on impulse spending, which is shitty. It's less shitty than putting a portion of the roster behind a paywall. If people have gambling problems, that's their problem, not Blizzards. Do you want to outlaw the lottery? Casinos? Buying stocks? Yeah, they prey on the impulsive, but everyone does.
P.S. You used "cruft" wrong. It's used as coding jargon for useless/junk data. Nice try though.
@Kezzy123: Weird marketing department. Marketing shouldn't be in control of business decisions. What they should be doing is emphasizing the good of the company and lessening the impact of negatives.
For example, Audi made a car that was relatively cheap and the marketing department thought it would sell if they labeled it as a budget Audi. Sales were bad so the next year, they advertised it as a normal Audi and it sold well.
Marketing doesn't control prices or other business decisions, so you're probably thinking of the sales department.
@Kezzy123: I explained that already. I said Blizzard uses a business model that relies on impulse spending. They're such a large company and criticism towards that model is outnumbered by gameplay issues. They're also able to deflect criticism with their "it's purely cosmetic" defense. Their public image is viewed as generally positive due to their gameplay.
I don't know why you're attacking my marketing views when I'm basically agreeing with you. They are shady and unethical, but they work around that to the point where it gets little attention.
Marketing is about public image. We're not the ones deciding prices and stuff. If I worked for Blizzard, my job would revolve around making them look good. Loot boxes are unfair? "The devs will work on getting rid of repeat skins." Mercy is OP? "At Blizzard, we like to experiment with new changes that make gameplay more enjoyable. Of course we'll mess up from time to time but it's all for the sake of fun."
@Thanatos2k: Because it's an obvious question that doesn't need answering. I explained that just simply game purchases aren't enough to fund development.
You're just bringing up random stuff because you're trying to tear down my point. I don't know why though. It's not a controversial opinion for businesses to make money. Almost every big game has microtransactions due to the rising costs of development and the stagnant selling price.
You're just arguing for the sake of arguing because what I'm saying is objective facts.
angel9ramos7's comments