Overwatch characters and maps released post-launch will be free
Instead of charging for new characters and maps, Blizzard promises to make them available for free in Overwatch.
Overwatch game director Jeff Kaplan has revealed the game’s post-launch content will include additional maps and heroes that will be offered as free content.
Heroes and maps will be delivered in the form of patches, similar to how Blizzard launches new characters in Heroes of the Storm. For Overwatch, though, each patch that includes a new map and/or character will be completely free post launch.
While Kaplan says these new characters and maps will be added “as free content and not as DLC”, we’re curious just how long those plans will continue through the life of Overwatch. Other publishers and developers release additional content within paid downloadable content, but for Blizzard to make all future characters and maps available for free is unheard of in this day and age.
If they’re able to keep their promise through the life Overwatch, then it’s certainly worth its price of admission.
-
Shacknews
replyDaniel Perez posted a new article, Overwatch characters and maps released post-launch will be free
-
Yes, but when will I get in the beta?!
Blizzard why yu no gief betta?!!1
Nerf [insert character]!
/first
Etc
And um, O'doyle rules? -
If they go down the road of cosmetics, particularly related to abilities, for microtransactions, I think they make BANK.
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
"Just look at TF2" - A free to play ad machine.
Just look at early TF2 maybe, but how much of that was operating at a loss until they figured out dinging you gambling opportunities (crates) to fund the game?-
[deleted]
-
Like I said, we don’t know how long TF2 was operating at a loss. You can't hold that up as a sustainable model of game development when they had to monetize up the game shortly after. Has Valve done that same thing with any game since? (meaning single retail purchase with indefinite content support?)
The point is...Battlefront doesn’t charge you for skins and doesn't have microtransactions, but it has map packs (which DICE has been doing since the early 2000s).
The money has to come from somewhere to pay for the ongoing support. It is pretty clear from everything that $60 cannot pay for keeping developers around for a few years worth of content.-
[deleted]
-
CS:GO has crates and micro transactions.
L4D2 got 3 more maps and a couple weapons? Everything else was old L4D1 content or "crossover DLC" with other games.
Front end content is a nice idea from the consumer, but it sucks for the developer. You are sinking a lot of cost (and it is expensive) and hoping you don't get tanked on reviews or whatever on Day 1. With the number of purchases you have a better idea what to expect from DLC and how much to put into it. If you do a season pass you can also fund it separately.
Of course on the other end of the spectrum you can do an early release or something similar where you are basically releasing an incomplete game and adding in things "free" that were part of your original risk.-
[deleted]
-
-
Also, L4D2 is ironic as an example since it essentially split the L4D community with content that some would have though should be included based on the TF2 model, but was a complete new game within a year of L4D's release.
This is informative.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23911
-
[deleted]
-
Meh. I think this messianic fervor surrounding certain developers only ever ends in gamer tears.
-
[deleted]
-
I don't think you should get upset over it, but I also don't think it is as set in stone and godly as you make it either. Diablo did have its real money store issues after all. A lot of early statements about that game were false as they reversed course.
My point is simply, be wary. No one is immune to economic forces, no matter how much gamers want to pretend it is a good versus evil consideration.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
If it was a loss leader (probably not) it was a fantastic loss leader.
-
-
-
-
-
-
