880°

Overwatch's Price Disparity is Even More Glaring After Launch

It's great that people are enjoying Overwatch. But it's also not fair that it's being charged on consoles for full price as a multiplayer only title.

Read Full Story >>
twinfinite.net
yarbie10002893d ago

Amazon just dropped the price of Overwatch for consoles http://amzn.to/1WMnLL0

ChronikCanuck2893d ago

You have to be an Amazon Prime member I believe.

Eonjay2893d ago (Edited 2893d ago )

Nope. I went incognito and the price is indeed 48.99. With prime its 47.99. (So you only save $1 because its 20% off of list price only.... which is weird being as though 48.99 is their new list price and its not 'on sale'). Someone with Prime should bring this up with them.

thorstein2892d ago

It's 47.99 for Prime, 48.99 for regular. But then you get free shipping with Prime.

mikeslemonade2892d ago

Meh it's like $40 elsewhere at one time. You people here on N4G aren't the best shoppers.

wakeNbake2893d ago

Thats the price I pay for all games I preorder on Prime, no price drop.

Notellin2892d ago

Yeah to match the 20% gamersclub discount at Best Buy.

Notellin2892d ago

Yeah all new games are that price for pre-order and 2 weeks after release. They are matching the 20% gamersclub unlocked members get at best buy.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2892d ago
Timesplitter142893d ago (Edited 2893d ago )

I truly do not understand this recent belief that popped up about multiplayer-only games being worth less. Here's some examples of mp-only games: CSGO, Dota 2, Team Fortress, Dayz, Rust, Ark, Rocket League, Hearthstone, LoL, etc....

Basically, these are the games that you always find at the top of everyone's "Most played" games list on their steam pages. It's the sort of game that people always come back to. They usually provide 300+ hours of play time, while many full-priced single player games are played for something like 12 hours (and that's being generous).

So why on earth do people feel like mp-only is worth less? Why is 300 hours of enjoyment worth less than 12 hours of enjoyment? Do console people think games like Doom multiplayer and Uncharted multiplayer modes are representative of what actual good mp games are like?

(on a side note: I probably won't be buying Overwatch, because I didn't like the beta. But my point still stands. It's the game I don't like; not the fact that it's multiplayer)

firelogic2893d ago

Excellent point that people seem to gloss over. If you like MP games, chances are you're definitely going to get way more play time out of an Overwatch versus an Uncharted 4. Yes, Uncharted 4 has an MP portion to it but really, you're paying $60USD for the single player which lasts about 16hrs first time through. There are people who have already played 16 hours of Overwatch and it launched last night.

The value of a game shouldn't be judged on what's missing but what's there and how much you will personally get out of it. I don't like MP games so Overwatch would be a bad purchase for me. If I was into the genre, it'd be a godsend that I'd be playing for months on end.

If Overwatch did have a story mode, it'd probably last 6 hours or less, including cutscenes and then it's back to the MP. Is that 6hrs really worth $20 to you?

If you're balking at the $60 price for Overwatch, you really weren't that interested in it to begin with.

legionsoup2892d ago

I buy a LOT of games. And a 15 hour single player experience is just as worthwhile (and many times better) than 100 hours spent in multiplayer for me. Why? I honestly don't want to have to invest that much time in a game. Like I said, I buy a lot of games.

If "bang for your buck" were the main concern when it came to gaming, my best 3 games of all time would be Pixel Junk Monsters and Herzog Zwei.

And while they are good, they aren't my favorite games ever. The Last of Us is. And Metal Gear Solid (as a series) is very close. So is Zelda.

Scatpants2892d ago

Uncharted multiplayer is a blast. Most underrated part of the game. Every reviewer seems to treat it like it's nothing, but they are doing things with verticality and platforming that no other shooter does.

Trez12342892d ago

I don't have a problem with the price myself and I'm having alot of fun with uncharted 4 online.

s45gr322892d ago

It should be judged on what is missing. Both single player games and specially online only games are pretty barebones, using DLC as a crutch to have more game content.

PS2 single player games only had:

Multilayer levels with hidden pathways
Mini games
Alternate endings
Free unlockables
Cheat Codes
Easter eggs

Today's single player only games offer:

Easter Eggs
Some not all offer alternate endings

Slap on or tack on multiplayer campaign to justify the $60.00 price tag

Extremely linear paths. Look but don't touch mentality

Multiplayer games only back in the day offered:

Mod Support
Lan Support

Splitscreen offline Multiplayer campaign

Some not all offered unique online game modes.

10-20 maps

A wide variety of guns

Map editor

At least 5-6 online only game modes

Today's online only games features are:

Microtransanctions on $60.00 online only games 😄

DLC, DLC, DLC, DLC and more DLC till you choke on it.

3 or 4 online only game modes

4-8 maps if by luck 12 maps

Map packs

Tacked on or slap on single player campaign to justify the $60.00 price tag.

In the end gamers are getting rip off due to their lack of gaming history and sitting there and do nothing attitude

FamilyGuy2892d ago

Never finished an Uncharted story campaign, always played them for the multi-player (fell in love with Uncharted 2). I know I'm in the minority but people like me do exist. I do appreciate the single-player being there though, it'd be great if games would let you purchase the modes separately ($30 each or $40 for story $20 for multi-player).

Kyizen2892d ago

My issue is I could pop UC4 in my PS4 5 years from now and enjoy the full game. With MP only games you are at the mercy of the developer and server support. Look at MAG gor example of you own that it is now worthless cause the servers shutdown. That doesnt mean overwatch isnt worth $60 but it is something to consider.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2892d ago
Erik73572893d ago (Edited 2893d ago )

None of those are 60 dollars and some of them are even free to play...
I would pay $50 dollars for something like overwatch or titanfall

Timesplitter142893d ago (Edited 2893d ago )

I'm not saying they are $60; I'm asking what makes people think they aren't worth as much as $60 single player games

Also, most people who play F2P games for hundreds of hours have bought at least $50 worth of stuff

yeahokwhatever2893d ago

@Timesplitter14
"I'm asking what makes people think they aren't worth as much as $60 single player games "
Content. The hours and hours of voice over work, sound, direction, level design, scripting, etc. all adds value to a single player experience. If Uncharted 4's single player was simply MP bot match, then yeah, you'd have a point. It generally costs more to produce AAA single player content than it does to produce a MP shooter. Generally. Also, some people replay single player games. Theres trophys, unlockables, secrets, etc. in most single player games that compel users to return to the title more than once. (new game +, hard mode, modifiers and mutators, etc.)

Godmars2902893d ago

"I'm not saying they are $60; I'm asking what makes people think they aren't worth as much as $60 single player games"

The effort involved with creating an entertaining interactive experience, mainly designing competent AI and structuring a story, designing boss battles, setting up various interlocking levels, versus simply dumping a bunch of players in an arena. Yes the latter involves some work, but the former requires much more.

I am literally on the other side of this argument wondering how other don't understand that.

Timesplitter142893d ago (Edited 2893d ago )

@Godmars290
I guess at the end of the day, this debate is between....
1- People who think a product is worth the enjoyment it can bring them (me)
2- People who think a product is worth the effort/money it cost to create, proportionally (you)

According to #1, I should've paid $5 for AC:Unity and $500 for Binding of Isaac
According to #2, no art/painting should be worth more than $20

... actually I'm starting to think both are wrong. Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them, regardless of production costs, effort, or theoretical value

Godmars2902892d ago

@Timesplitter14:

"actually I'm starting to think both are wrong. Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them, regardless of production costs, effort, or theoretical value"

No. The phrase you're looking for is "Priced at what the market can bear" in regards to consumer goods. The reason behind not having to pay $500 for a bottle of water, especially if the seller in question is by a fresh water source.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2892d ago
NatureOfLogic_2893d ago (Edited 2893d ago )

By that logic, we should be paying $60 for repetitive smartphone games because we spend more time playing them than a single player game. While we're at we should be paying at least $100 for Tetris and PAC-MAN.

Timesplitter142893d ago

Well, that's not so far from the truth. I'm pretty sure tons of regular Candy Crush players have invested way more than $60 dollars into the game

ShinRon2893d ago

When games are free, some users can spend much more than $60...

also consider people are buying the game for $60 and then spending more money on cosmetics...

Pledius2892d ago (Edited 2892d ago )

Bad analogy because those repetitive smartphone games you will spend more because of in game cash shop and etc... to give pay to play users real advantage

Overwatch has NONE. Except the loot box for cosmetic that doesn't give "advantage" to non paying players

aquaticDonut2893d ago

Most of the games you listed are under $15 or free. Overwatch is quadruple that. Hence the problem.

Timesplitter142893d ago (Edited 2893d ago )

$15 with in-game purchases doesn't count as $15

The real reason why CS:GO is $15 is because Valve knows people will impulsively spend upwards of $100 on skin packs (sad but true)

Overwatch doesn't have in-game purchases, so it's $60 up front

Hold_It2893d ago

MP Only games are worth less to me because once the developer pulls the plug on the server I'm stuck with a $60 coaster. If the game was SP and had a bunch of MP stuff, I'd still have something to play after the servers died, and could understand paying $60.

Caffo012893d ago

Rocket league is not multiplayer only

GTgamer2893d ago

You need to keep in mind that without Internet connection those games are worthless compared to a game with single-player so I think that's why mp only games should be cheaper, they shouldn't be 60 just because their good games to waste time in.

Scatpants2892d ago

Yes, all of the games you listed are worth less than $60. The reason that 300 hours of enjoyment are worth less than 12 is because the Devs didn't have to do anything for that 300 hours. You are essentially playing the same handfull of small levels over and over. To create a single player campaign involves everything the multiplayer involves plus Writing, animation, choreography, photography direction etc. Basically it's the difference between a movie and walking around the set for a movie. Sure you can walk around the set for 300 hours but it won't be the same as watching the movie that was made there.

Germaximus2892d ago

Not a single game you just named costs $50+.

That said, I don't feel that it's "not fair" to pay the asked price.

kevnb2892d ago

people with no friends and people who play games mostly for the story

T-Dawg62892d ago

I completely agree. A good multiplayer game has a ton on replay value while most single player games you play once and you're done. So why should multiplayer only titles just automatically cost less?

iJihaD2892d ago

True!! I believe a 60$ price tag should not be related to type of game, but rather the quality and lifespan of the game.

What people are lacking, especially on consoles, is the capability to determine what is quality of game in offline games and multi-games. While it's true the biggest pillars in quality of game in offline games is: the story, graphics and mechanics. In multi-games this is totally not true! The quality is far trickier and difficult! its in the competitive mechanics, the balancing, the diversity.. and lots more.. and if the game was successful in each one of them, this one hell of a high-quality-60$-worth game; because perfecting multi-game quality aspects requires lots and lots of time, testing, smartness and risk.

It's absolutely not fare to judge a multi-game with offline-game checklist to determine how much it's worth. This is absolute nonsense.

thekhurg2892d ago

Some of those are completely free so people play them like crazy because they're free they have larger playerbase to keep them going.

s45gr322892d ago

But those games you mentioned have mod support, lan support, and maybe a map editor or offline splitscreen multiplayer option. Don't forget those games did brought unique online gaming modes. The exception is day z due to being early access.

Clown_Syndr0me2892d ago

Amen to this, I paid £80 for Battlefield 4 + Premium. Well worth it. Played hundreds of hours. I paid £45 for Uncharted and was done after 14 hours.

Servbot412892d ago

The single-player content of a game will always exist. Multiplayer won't. Plain and simple. Not to mention the launch price on a lot of those games you listed wasn't $60 and some are F2P.

kneon2892d ago

Of the games on your most played list I own one, and didn't even pay for it, and haven't yet played it.

I can count on one hand the multiplayer games that I've put more than 20 hours into, most quickly become a boring and repetitive grind. But there are plenty of single player games that I've played over and over, and then there are the games like Fallout or Assassins Creed that can eat up dozens or hundreds of hour.

For me the value is in the experience, I rarely remember any special moments from any multiplayer, but there are single player games that will stick with me forever. I'd rather pay $60 for a game like Journey than pay $20 for something like COD.

daynnight3652892d ago

Man I was first agreeing that the game was overpriced but this post brought up some good points. Why so many downvotes

N4G4L2892d ago

I agree with you my head is in a twist trying to figure this one out though, i can understand paying some decent money for a great game that you get multiple hours of enjoyment out and get your moneys worth, but in my personal opinion its not this game, i enjoy blizzard games but they kind of screwed up when they made this, I did not find it very enjoyable, and making it a full price 60$ that doesnt have a campaign or any other content other than microtransactions and some skins, well thats where they lost me. i dont think MP only is worth less but in this case it is. or rather should be. i get it though yea 300 plus hours of fun should be worth something though right?! but cmon i dont think its worth the $60 price tag..

FamilyGuy2892d ago

Multi-player only games are MUCH cheaper to make than games that have both so that should be cheaper, all your examples are irrelevant. Cost them less so it should cost us less, simple as that. To top it off it has micro-transactions as well. I wouldn't pay more than $40 for a game like that on console, $30 on PC.

+ Show (17) more repliesLast reply 2892d ago
ChronikCanuck2893d ago

90$(Canada) for a console game that is severely lacking content is far too rich for my blood! To me it seems like they're making you pay for all the cosmetic items in the game.

robtion2892d ago

Yep. I don't mind paying full price for the game because it's great fun but it is loaded with microtransactions and most cosmetics are behind a paywall that will take a huge amount of ogrindin to obtain without forking out more money. A full price game that then uses a free to play model of micro transactions is not cool.

Debo 132892d ago

"but it is loaded with microtransactions"
No, it's not.
There's 5 different microtransactions in the game, and this is how they're priced:
2 Loot Boxes --$2
5 Loot Boxes -- $5
11 Loot Boxes -- $10
24 Loot Boxes -- $20
50 Loot Boxes -- $40

No cosmetics are behind a paywall at all, each level you get a loot box and you get cosmetics in them. Sure, there may be a bit of grinding in the later levels but that doesn't really matter if you're enjoying the game.
It's not like you're forced into buying loot boxes either, you can choose not to. It's as simple as that. And since everything you obtain from loot boxes are purely cosmetic no-one receives an unfair advantage.

Plus, Blizzard has stated that all future Overwatch maps and characters will be free.

Godmars2902892d ago (Edited 2892d ago )

@Debo 13:

How are you saying there are not microtransaction, then pointing out that there are microtransactions?

I mean, microtransactions include cosmetic items.

Mehmeh2892d ago

@Godmars

Well he didn't say there are not micro transactions, he denied that it was "loaded" with them.

sdcard4gb2893d ago

If to take into account the amount of stuff that will be added to the game through the years I am more then sure that it deserves a full price cost.
This is not EA Battlefront, guys.

ILostMyMind2893d ago

But that stuff will be for free?

NatureOfLogic_2893d ago

I'm not willing to spend $60 on the promise of improving over time. It's that's their plan, the game should be free to play. Also who's to say that you won't be bored or no longer interested in the game by the time they release those updates? Just look at Division as an example.

yeahokwhatever2893d ago

Yep. I'm done buying games on the promise of it being fun eventually.

sdcard4gb2892d ago

Well, comparing Overwatch and The Division is pretty much like comparing a delicious treat your grandma would make you to a glass full of spunk some hobo would let you drink for nutrition...

DragonDDark2892d ago

People were mad about street fighter 5 doing this and some boycotted it.. what changed?

zombiewombie2892d ago

That makes street fighter 5 ok, right?

DragonDDark2892d ago

Exactly. I think people are just being hypocrites now.

Mehmeh2892d ago

SF5 isn't a plain multiplayer only game though, besides SF5 got a lot of flack when compared to previous titles in the series in terms of content.

But that said yes i wish Overwatch had a bit lower initial price.

Stereotypical_gamer2892d ago

I understand that this isn't EA or Activision but that is a lot of trust you put in Blizzard to give you free shit down the road. Don't give publishers the opportunity to be lazy, they will rip you off every time.

sdcard4gb2892d ago

Okay, I'll be miserable and untrusting, aaaaas youuuuu saaaaaay, mister.
Also, did Blizzard ever rip us off ?

Stereotypical_gamer2892d ago

No, your not miserable and untrusting, your just gullible and naive.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2892d ago
Ethereal2893d ago

Personally, I don't mind. I know that it is going to get tons of play time on my console so all is good. Not to mention it will be getting free add on content.

Show all comments (126)
70°

10 Overwatch Heroes You Would Want To Hang Out With

The world could always use a few more heroes, or in this case friends. Here are some Overwatch Heroes you would want to hang out with.

Read Full Story >>
thegamehaus.com
100°

I Miss the Original Overwatch

Blizzard's blending of the FPS and MOBA was a masterpiece of design that met its end too soon.

Tedakin334d ago

I miss 6v6, lootboxes and an actual player level. I used to look forward to Junkenstein's Revenge at Halloween and the Christmas event cause of all the cool cosmetics you could earn. I'd play it every day. Now you play it for an hour, earn some stupid charm, and you're done. No reason to play anymore.

ActualWhiteMan333d ago

RIP OW2 is trash. My friends stopped playing it like we used to the first one every Friday night.

smoothdude333d ago

this. loved overwatch 1. 2 is no fun. there is lots to play… find something you like.

Gardenia333d ago

I'd never thought I would say this but the loot boxes in Overwatch wasn't so bad compared to what it is now.

GoodGuy09333d ago

I remember those epic dreamworks-like CGIs. I wasn't a fan at all but man, I knew it was a rediculously huge game. OW2 I've seen...nothing, died maybe after a week.

moomoo319333d ago

OW2 is a disaster. All these years to make the game 5v5….? And they scrapped PvE? The game just sucks man zero fun.

64d ago
190°

Activision Shows Concerns Over The Call Of Duty And Overwatch League's Longevity

Activision has admitted that its Call of Duty and Overwatch eSport Leagues are facing challenges that the company might fail to address.

just_looken353d ago

Ha ha these have been in trouble fort awhile so now we talk about it/address it?

How about you explain why you make billions but always have layoff's.

S2Killinit353d ago

Activision:
Woe is me

These guys come off so disingenuous.

ModsDoBetter353d ago

The timing is strange but COD has been on a nosedive for several years & then followed by the backlash of Overwatch 2.

sadraiden352d ago

COD has literally never been more popular. Every single year it sells more and more copies than the previous year. Don't know what you mean by nosedive.

ModsDoBetter352d ago (Edited 352d ago )

@sadraiden

It has taken a nosedive in quality.
However, as you based your argument on sales numbers, let's take a dive, shall we?

"COD has literally never been more popular"
COD has literally been more popular.

See: MW2 sales numbers estimate to be at 8million copies sold at the end of 2022 (no official numbers released) yet Black Ops (2010) sits at a staggering 31million copies sold.

"Every single year it sells more and more copies than the previous year"
Again, not true.

(In release order)
Black Ops - 31 million copies
Modern Warfare 3 - 30 million copies
Black Ops 2 - 29 million copies
Ghosts - 28 million copies
Advanced Warfare - 21 million copies
Black Ops 3 - 26 million copies
Infinite Warfare - 13 million copies
WWII - 19 million copies
Black Ops 4 - 14 million copies
MW2019 - 30 million copies
Cold War - 30 million copies
Vanguard - Unreleased sales numbers
MW2022 - No solid numbers yet, though as above - 8 million estimated as of end of 2022

As you can see "every single year it sells more and more copies than the previous year" is an inaccurate statement with the sales numbers fluctuating, though I do feel MW2022 would sell well over the course of the year.

luckytrouble352d ago

This timing isn't that weird. eSports are notorious money sinks, and organizations have been failing one after another the past few months as funds dry up and popularity wavers. Critical who is one of the runners of his own eSports organization has been extremely candid about the fact that there's really no money to be made, and a lot of suits that had their companies throw money at the concept are just starting to give up and move on.

Profchaos353d ago

Just to coincide with the CMA appeal woe is us

smolinsk353d ago

Wow and they have totally done it to them Self with zero innovation.

shinoff2183353d ago

Exactly. Biggest game in gaming and they crying. Stfu acti

ModsDoBetter353d ago

They really dropped the ball with COD ever since WW2 I’d say.

Year after year it’s just disappointment after disappointment and it only got worse with Warzone and MW2019 - seasonal progression, battle pass, goofy skins, not listening to player feedback, you name it.

merlox352d ago

Call of duty was only good when they were WWII. Activision should go back to how they started. Also, they can make the single player stories longer. Not everyone plays the multiplayer.

porkChop352d ago

A lot of people here couldn't even read the headline. This isn't about the games themselves, it's about the esports leagues.

shinoff2183352d ago

Put the money into it. You have the biggest game in gaming.

porkChop352d ago

Agreed. They can obviously afford it.

ChasterMies352d ago

If people don’t like playing the games as much, then why would they want to watch other people play it?

Show all comments (21)