Blizzcon 2019 Thread

Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
(2 votes)
Results 26 to 50 of 55

  1. Post
    #26
    It will have trading and PVP, I time stamp for you. https://youtu.be/TwJHhFuX-FI?t=674

    But I'm waiting for Project TL

  2. Post
    #27
    Sounds like Overwatch 2 could be quite a way's out as well Jeff Kaplan said the dev team will be going dark a for a while after Blizzcon. I wouldn't expect it before Holiday 2020 personally.

  3. Post
    #28
    Diablo 4 will not have an offline mode, and the game is 'not coming anytime soon'

    The "shared open world" essentially gives Diablo 4 the form of an MMO, so it's not surprising that it will require an always-on internet connection in order to populate the world with other players. You'll be able to play solo, but not offline.
    It's a pseudo-MMO this around, so I'm fine with it. Still I'll pass because I'd rather play Destiny 2 or Borderlands.

  4. Post
    #29
    Makes me less keen tbh

  5. Post
    #30
    Valeyard wrote:
    Sounds like Overwatch 2 could be quite a way's out as well Jeff Kaplan said the dev team will be going dark a for a while after Blizzcon. I wouldn't expect it before Holiday 2020 personally.
    The leak said 2021, but they showed one new character, that I assume will be out by early next year.

  6. Post
    #31
    Valeyard wrote:
    Sounds like Overwatch 2 could be quite a way's out as well Jeff Kaplan said the dev team will be going dark a for a while after Blizzcon. I wouldn't expect it before Holiday 2020 personally.
    Blizzard likes to announce games sometime out - do not be surprised if the new announcements are not out for another 12 - 16 months.

  7. Post
    #32
    Seems very strange to call it Overwatch 2

  8. Post
    #33
    CODChimera wrote:
    Seems very strange to call it Overwatch 2
    Overwatch 1.5

  9. Post
    #34
    The clients will eventually merge and the only thing behind a paywall will be the PVE lore stuff. So everyone with the original game will get a graphics and UI upgrade as well as all the new PVP content.

  10. Post
    #35
    All cosmetics and unlocks are taken over to Ow2.
    There won't be an OW1 in the future. From french https://twitter.com/AlphaCastFR/stat...07442846375937

    "CONFIRME The Overwatch client will eventually merge with the Overwatch 2 client. There will only be one game. "OW2" will be the client that everyone will use. People who have not purchased OW2 will simply have the "PVE" part locked. Just as predicted"
    So basically it's SP DLC for the new client that both games will use, charged at a premium as a new game. Who does that indeed...

  11. Post
    #36
    I literally posted that above you...

  12. Post
    #37
    HELL KNIGHT wrote:
    I literally posted that above you...
    Ah, my bad.

  13. Post
    #38
    Haha wow that is cynical. A literal expansion pack priced and marketed as a sequel.

  14. Post
    #39
    I've got so much enjoyment from Overwatch for so little outlay that I don't mind supporting them by paying full price for Overwatch 2 even though it does feel like more of an expansion than a true sequel. I just hope they keep the same business model of giving you all the bonus content for free and not try to monetize it into paid seasons or the other paid stuff we see in some games, I want to pay once for the game and that's it, not be fleeced constantly for my money every few months like I'm playing Destiny or something.

  15. Post
    #40
    I feel the same, I've have had amazing value for money out of it, so can't complain, and will probably buy it as well. I am just stoked that it isn't going to be left to die off with all the time I have put into it.
    Last edited by HELL KNIGHT; 3rd November 2019 at 3:39 pm.

  16. Post
    #41

  17. Post
    #42
    I'm pleased barbarian has been confirmed for d4, any gameplay etc this far out from launch is probably fairly irrelevant/so subject to change.

  18. Post
    #43
    Celticknife wrote:
    Haha wow that is cynical. A literal expansion pack priced and marketed as a sequel.
    The cynic here is you. You're reducing what they're doing because they are being generous.
    If all the content included was gated to those buying the game it would be considered a full sequel:
    - New game modes
    - Now Story content/modes
    - New/upgraded engine
    - Updated character designs
    - New upgrade paths for characters
    - New characters
    - New maps/locations
    - New cosmetics
    - Probably some shit I've not mentioned

    Which is all a sequel needs to be. Hell it is literally what a sequel is for this genre. COD, BF, and all the rest literally do this, and some of them just barely. I don't care one iota about this game, but being so offhandedly dismissive is at best being disingenuous.
    Why is it that for some reason we have people complaining about the fact that they're giving much of the content and improvement for free to people who own the first game? Surely the fact you don't need to buy it to play with people that do is a good thing right?

    So no, not a "literal expansion pack". A literal sequel that has leaned heavily into not splitting the player base.
    Has the hate on Blizzard discussion (some well earned, some literally fictional) that people are entrenched in blinded them so much that some can't acknowledge when something good happens?

  19. Post
    #44
    Celticknife wrote:
    Haha wow that is cynical. A literal expansion pack priced and marketed as a sequel.
    Yeah pretty much, it just seems convoluted and strange when they could've just released it as a dlc expansion

    GiantMartianTripod wrote:
    I've got so much enjoyment from Overwatch for so little outlay that I don't mind supporting them by paying full price for Overwatch 2 even though it does feel like more of an expansion than a true sequel. I just hope they keep the same business model of giving you all the bonus content for free and not try to monetize it into paid seasons or the other paid stuff we see in some games, I want to pay once for the game and that's it, not be fleeced constantly for my money every few months like I'm playing Destiny or something.
    I haven't played it for awhile now but I still got my moneys worth. It _is_ a quality game, just wish they'd been a bit more faster with the balancing. The PvE events they did were great so hopefully there's a lot of content like those in it

  20. Post
    #45
    ChrisB wrote:
    The cynic here is you. You're reducing what they're doing because they are being generous.
    If all the content included was gated to those buying the game it would be considered a full sequel:
    - New game modes
    - Now Story content/modes
    - New/upgraded engine
    - Updated character designs
    - New upgrade paths for characters
    - New characters
    - New maps/locations
    - New cosmetics
    - Probably some shit I've not mentioned

    Which is all a sequel needs to be. Hell it is literally what a sequel is for this genre. COD, BF, and all the rest literally do this, and some of them just barely. I don't care one iota about this game, but being so offhandedly dismissive is at best being disingenuous.
    Why is it that for some reason we have people complaining about the fact that they're giving much of the content and improvement for free to people who own the first game? Surely the fact you don't need to buy it to play with people that do is a good thing right?

    So no, not a "literal expansion pack". A literal sequel that has leaned heavily into not splitting the player base.
    Has the hate on Blizzard discussion (some well earned, some literally fictional) that people are entrenched in blinded them so much that some can't acknowledge when something good happens?
    I'm not reducing what they are doing, I'm pointing out the cynical marketing strategy employed. I'm sure this constitutes a bunch of development time, but the reality is that these types of updates expected in the games as a service model, usually provided freely to keep the game relevant.

    While highlighting COD and BF, two series infamous for being cynical cash grabs, you have ignored the type of games that are directly analogous - games with ongoing development and e-sport aspirations like DotA 2, CSGO and LoL.

    All 3 of those games have had game modes, engine upgrades, asset upgrades, cosmetics and maps added for free on a regular basis over their life. LoL has a more aggressive monetisation model, granted, but CSGO and DotA operate on very similar MTX models to Overwatch.

    The PvE mode(s) might be a significant chunk of content - I absolutely accept that, and have no issues whatsoever with them charging players for what it is - optional expansion content.

    What you are doing here is trying to frame providing ongoing content to Overwatch, which is very clearly marketed as an ongoing e-sports title in the games as a service model as a 'generous' move. In my view, that is a baseline expectation of such a model.

    ChrisB wrote:
    If all the content included was gated to those buying the game it would be considered a full sequel
    True, if Overwatch were trying to compete with COD, rather than CSGO.

    The CS franchise has had 3 mainline games, as I'm sure you know. Regardless of opinions on Source, each game in the series represented a fundamental technological shift and iterative improvement in underlying game design. The only reason a completely new game was required in each case was due to the limitations of the technology underpinning the previous game, and as such there was not and could not be any viable way to 'back-fill' those changes.

    If that were the case with Overwatch 2, with the engine overhaul and game design changes being so fundamentally different so as to make the games mutually exclusive then yes, that is absolutely a true sequel. As is, this looks like bundling expected iterative updates with some extra single player content and trying to package an expansion pack as a full sequel.

  21. Post
    #46
    I disagree. I see some pretty cynical selective reasoning here. The "bundling of expected iterative updates" is a crock, and I think you know that. Maybe if Overwatch was an actual "games as a service" title which it is not. It is a stand alone product that requires no additional money after that one off purchase price. There is no subscription model here. No gating. No grinding to unlock content, power, items, or characters. So that point is objectively incorrect.

    Now, I don't care about Overwatch, and I have no interest in MP only titles.
    From what I've seen Overwatch has had a lot of new content added in the 3 and half years since release. About 10 new characters, the same number of new maps, and I expect more cosmetics that I could dare to count. The Characters and Maps are free, and I assume the cosmetics are unlocks or can be purchased for real money. Seems to be the support has been there.

    For me at least. New engine, new story content, and new modes more than constitutes a sequel.

    The DOTA 2 and LOL comparisons are interesting because those games function as F2P grind, where ongoing micro-transactions are the primary revenue source. Thus the need for more content is required to maintain that revenue stream. I understand it costs over $1000NZD to buy all of the Champions in LOL for instance. I assume they are technically free, but enough people buy them and other things for that game to make massive amounts of revenue. I can't comment on CSGO as I know almost nothing about it. I've never played it or watched anything about it. But if there is not a primary monetisation loop based on in-game content or itemisation I would be surprised. It maybe untrue for CSGO, but for DOTA2 and LOL the ongoing addition of content is required for their monetisation model. Keep people playing so they buy more stuff and/or keep making stuff for them to buy.

    Overwatch gives you everything upfront when you buy it. Obviously it has lootboxes which I am not a fan of, but there is no gating or timers, or unlocks for actual game content. Differentiating is important. I am sure Blizz makes a killing from those loot boxes, but unlike DOTA and LOL you get everything at the start with no grind requirement, which is why I made the COD/BF comparison because they are "traditional" upfront costed titles.

    Obviously the the sequel is designed to make money, that is why every game released is made. My point is that Overwatch 2 seems like a more than reasonable value proposition, and more than generous for those that don't think it is. I fail to see how anything you've said counters that.

    The notion that a sequel needs to be "fundamentally different" is a fallacy. I bet you can likely name a dozen sequels that are not fundamentally different yourself without even thinking about it too much.

    I will never buy it, hell I was given Overwatch and have clocked less than an hour in-game. I was surprised to see people continuing to complain, when I don't see any real reason for it. Then again I'm just happy Diablo 4 got announced, and no one has shit the bed in front of the Blizzcon audience.

  22. Post
    #47
    The loot boxes in Overwatch just contain cosmetic items, which can also be earned in game without spending a cent. I know they make plenty off them, which is fine, as it supports all the additional in game content being free.

    And if you've played for awhile you'll earn enough in game credits to buy the new cosmetic items without even needing to unlock them through playing.

    The game was only like $40 on launch too.

  23. Post
    #48
    Diablo IV can be played solo, but you cannot have a game world without other players in it. Dungeons will be locked to solo/party but the world and towns will have other players in them. Towns will have the most players, but deeper into the world fewer players will be able to be seen.
    I see what they're going for, but it's such a shame for players like me. This might be the first Diablo I don't buy. I want my first playthrough to be completely solo so I can enjoy the world, story, and lore without randomguy123, mrbutzz, or fairyprincess21 infecting my play space.
    I have no issues with always connected games, especially when the co-op is such a huge part of the experience, and something I enjoy the hell out of as well. But I want my first journey to be alone so I can immerse myself in the mood without distraction.

  24. Post
    #49
    I'm not super thrilled about having randoms in towns and whatnots. They are emphasizing that campaign areas remain private but I would have lumped town areas as part of the campaign

  25. Post
    #50
    Don't know why it couldn't be an option to maybe hide the other players in town for example, wouldn't have thought it would that much of a stretch.