The Jimquisition: Pay To Spray - Overwatch And Microtransactions

Rekt

Impact93 (Jon)

Thank GOD for Jim.

JadetheGuilmon

Consistency is more, not less valuable when it hurts. Thanks, Jim.

Kraken

Your commitment to holding the line prompted me to finally support you via Patreon. Thank you!

I feel the same way as you Jim, and this video nails it.

I feel like this video, and many other before it are dancing around this bigger issue. That of peoples unrealistic demands for a black or white answer. Things gotta be either perfect, or its the worst thing ever...and thats such a frustrating environment for discussion. Watching this vid I noticed just how much you felt the need to remind the viewers that despite the criticism, you really like the game. Its something I notice more and more in content provider videos. Its almost like commenters have become something of a tabloid article establishment, where they are just hungrily looking for the slightest ambiguity in a persons argument, forcing content makers to walk on eggshells, and thats really unfortunate that the social conversation landscape has devolved into that.

Nickwolf

I understand where you're coming from. I gravitate more towards TBs line of thought for 2 reasons: I personally don't care about the cosmetics, at all. Nor the "progression". I understand it's in there by popular demand, but I could've done without it. As such the microtransaction thing just passes me by entirely, pretty much. On top of that, I also think the cosmetics that are in the game are pretty unostentatious. They don't drown out the "normal" charackters with overbearing colors and effects, they fit in nicely without distracting, so as far as I'm concerned it's tastefully done on Blizzards part. I would be happier without any microtransactions, of course, but I guess that's wishful thinking. So if I have to deal with them in premium games, I think Overwatch is a good example.

I bought 100 loot boxes and I feel ambivalent about it. On the one hand I have gotten some joy out of having lots of cool skins and being able to have whatever aesthetic stuff I want. However on the other hand I ended up paying a lot of money to blizzard and while I can afford it this has made me feel a little guilty for spending so much money when I didn't have to. Blizzard definetly messed with me in the way that the system is designed to and I think that this has made my experience with Overwatch worse rather than better. Thanks for calling them out on this Jim.

RR

I really shouldn't have read through the Youtube comments. Apologists, apologists everywhere. Bllizzard doesn't hand out legendary skins for all those sloppy BJ's guys.

Mark Patten

I respect your opinion on this. I disagree with it because for me, cosmetics arent why I play games. I could care less if I'm in the stock skins, and not using sprays and voice lines and hero poses. Thats not why I play games. I dont play games to "look cool" So for me, the loot boxes dont mean anything. If the loot boxes affected gameplay, then I'd definitely be critical of this system. And the lootbox system can definitely be a slippery slope to purchasing coins in order to purchase that one skin that you just have to have to "look cool". But I wont speculate on a slippery slope. As it stands now, I simply play the game. Maybe that's why F2P games dislike me because I simply play the game and dont feel the temptation to "look cool" and buy skins. I dont feel the temptation. However, I speculate that loot boxes are used instead of direct DLC or direct coin purchase because its highly unlikely that anyone would purchase an olive green recolor skin for their character over a more detailed "legendary" skin. Therefore, Blizzard can force the purchase of the olive green skin while keeping some kind of special rare aspect to the legendary skins by leaving what you get in your loot box completely up to chance. By keeping this random, it can fuel the purchase of desirable unlocks over a longer period of time rather than having a cash shop system where initially players who wanted the "cool" skins would purchase the skins and run around happily, while those who did not want the skins (due to being able to afford them or not desiring the skin) would run around happily without the skin. in the purchase a skin system, you'd get a large influx of cash initially, but 3 months down the road, the cash flow would slow to a trickle unless new, more desirable skins were unveiled. And then the cash dump would start again. I think that maybe Blizzard's developers wanted to make things about the game first, and devote their artistic talents to creating new characters and new maps rather than being skin creators trying to make the most desirable skins to keep the cash dump going. Blizzard has been known to want to slow down player progression behind random elements, and if skins = progression, then this random system fits well with their established model. Perhaps in time Blizzard will remove the loot box system as more players reach high enough levels that obtaining loot boxes from play becomes prohibitively difficult and then will move to a cash shop system of purchasing coins to get skins or sprays or whatever is desired. Or Blizzard will move to a coin based system where a win nets you so many coins that you can use to purchase skins, or you can just purchase coins.

I respect you for sticking to your guns on the issue. Consistency is important and you've displayed it admirably. I don't 100% agree with your opinion, but I respect it and think it was argued eloquently

Michael Fitzgerald