Results 1 to 21 of 21

  1. Post

    Posts in this thread appear as comments on the following Gameplanet article:

    Read article...

  2. Post
    #2
    Interesting they wouldn't disclose the business model, I wonder if they're still deciding on pay to win or not

  3. Post
    #3
    It'll be free2play + money for cosmetics only

    calling it.

  4. Post
    #4
    Rekuja wrote:
    It'll be free2play + money for cosmetics only

    calling it.
    Hats are cool.

  5. Post
    #5
    Rekuja wrote:
    It'll be free2play + money for cosmetics only

    calling it.
    If it's not I won't be playing it.

  6. Post
    #6
    I just hope this comes to ps4 and xbox one. Haven't played an fps on pc in years and I doubt I'll be changing that anytime soon.

  7. Post
    #7
    Rambaldi wrote:
    I just hope this comes to ps4 and xbox one. Haven't played an fps on pc in years and I doubt I'll be changing that anytime soon.
    Pfft. Pleb.

  8. Post
    #8
    Tyroki wrote:
    Pfft. Pleb.
    Settle down child.

  9. Post
    #9
    Rambaldi wrote:
    I just hope this comes to ps4 and xbox one. Haven't played an fps on pc in years and I doubt I'll be changing that anytime soon.
    Don't you find aiming with a high precision mouse so much easier than waving around a pair of joysticks? Having played fps on PC I can never go back to playing them on console, the controls just feel so awkward.

  10. Post
    #10
    Wertbag wrote:
    Don't you find aiming with a high precision mouse so much easier than waving around a pair of joysticks? Having played fps on PC I can never go back to playing them on console, the controls just feel so awkward.
    Used to feel the exact same way. Just got used to it over time I guess, definitely had an adjustment period.

  11. Post
    #11
    Rekuja wrote:
    It'll be free2play + money for stronger guns, more HP, faster movement speed, experience % increase and a unlockable heavily overpowered class

    calling it.
    FTFY JOKINGLY (emphasis on the joke)

  12. Post
    #12
    Stasis wrote:
    Interesting they wouldn't disclose the business model, I wonder if they're still deciding on pay to win or not
    Not many pay-2-win games still exist outside mobile games that plebs play.

    Wertbag wrote:
    Don't you find aiming with a high precision mouse so much easier than waving around a pair of joysticks? Having played fps on PC I can never go back to playing them on console, the controls just feel so awkward.
    Overwatch is quite clearly not focused on 'stick the reticule over the enemy and shoot' - it's more skills based, which requires less accuracy. This could quite easily be just as good on a console and i'd be extremely surprised to not see it on the XB1 or PS4 at some point.

  13. Post
    #13
    I almost hope it's a standard pay and play model. Even the cosmetic thing is starting to make me grit my teeth...

  14. Post
    #14
    "FOV is definitely an important element of many shooters, including Overwatch. For clarity, Overwatch currently has a fixed vertical FOV of 60. This means that at 16:9 (which most players use), you'll have a horizontal FOV of about 92.

    To answer the "will there/won't there" question directly, though, there are no plans at this time to implement an FOV slider to the game. The rationale here is that we want to avoid creating a situation of "Haves and Have-Nots," where those who are aware of the slider are able to gain an advantage over those who aren't. Instead, we'd rather develop towards a unified FOV that feels good across the board. Aiming preferences, viewmodels, dizziness, nausea—these are all factors we considered when designing the current FOV and will remain sensitive and very open to as testing continues."


    Blizzard... what are you doing.

  15. Post
    #15
    Rekuja wrote:

    Blizzard... what are you doing.
    Horizontal FOV of 92 is fine?

  16. Post
    #16
    Rekuja wrote:
    The rationale here is that we want to avoid creating a situation of "Haves and Have-Nots," where those who are aware of the slider are able to gain an advantage over those who aren't.
    Hahaha.

  17. Post
    #17
    Yeah, 92 is fine. FAR better than the usual console port 65-70. Remember 90ish FOV was the standard in PC FPSes until consoles took lead platform precedence around 2005. FPSes back then were usually designed with typical PC monitor viewing distance in mind.

    Will multi-monitor users suffer? Yes. Multi-monitor PC gaming is such an extremely niche market however so I don't blame any developer for not dedicating the resources to it.

  18. Post
    #18
    opaque wrote:
    Horizontal FOV of 92 is fine?
    I would only call it "fine", but far from good or great.

    I personally enjoy games in 16:9 best at 100-110 FOV. The low FOV is also going to screw over a lot of people using multi-monitors or 21:9 resolution monitors.

    Instead, we'd rather develop towards a unified FOV that feels good across the board. Aiming preferences, viewmodels, dizziness, nausea—these are all factors we considered when designing the current FOV and will remain sensitive and very open to as testing continues.
    That's just Blizzard being arrogant. They are acting as if they are the first ones stumbling onto the FOV issue, and are now trying to find a magical solution capable of reinventing the wheel.

    EvaUnit02 wrote:
    Will multi-monitor users suffer? Yes. Multi-monitor PC gaming is such an extremely niche market however so I don't blame any developer for not dedicating the resources to it.
    This is the Blizzard, developing a game launching first on PC. I hold them to the highest standards of PC gaming. Even the slightest failure to support the PC platform on their part would be like Valve forgetting to provide mouse support on Steam.

  19. Post
    #19
    16:9 at anything around 90 makes me nauseas after a fairly short time. 101 or bust. Or, like many many console ports I just won't play.

  20. Post
    #20
    The fact that Overwatch ISN'T a port but has these dumb limitations makes it embarassing on their part. I usually play at 90 anyway so I'm not fussed, but the fact they used "have and have-nots" as their reasoning is a joke...

  21. Post
    #21
    meh, i giggled at some of the wording but its ok, we will see how it turns out