@IchigoExtreme@overfire_news Which is funny, because that skin is under the “Evolution” rarity, which is impossible in the global version of the game. If Mythic/Ultra skins were to that quality, and were maybe $30 instead of $20 for a legendary, it would be extremely more justified
@irisofhearts I am rather new to Vendetta. Ive been wanting to play her more since she released and got the hang of her pretty well. This walks back the muscle memory of her overhead and just feels SO clunky
@aromadilea@OWCavalry No offense, i highly doubt it. They phrase it like making skins for less popular characters actively kills the game and makes it less profitable, when it clearly is. They can survive making 100% income rather than 150%. I will never be compliant with greed
@OWCavalry A game as big as Overwatch can’t be struggling that much to HAVE to make skins that sell or they go under. Its corporate greed at its finest 2/2
@OWCavalry In no way i am a game developer or know anything about the finances. But there is NO WAY making more skins for less popular characters for the sake of making everyone more complete THAT much of a detriment for Return on Investment. 1/2
@Revali_Kai@WuyangMain@OWCavalry Don’t quote me, but I’m pretty sure they are going back to the “3 heroes a year” next year since its no longer the anniversary of Overwatch. I definitely could be wrong but I rather more QoL updates to the core foundation of the game rather than 10 heroes that fuck up the quality
@TRVTHNVK3S@HepkaJoeb Would you rather have Bungie ruin whats left of their reputation by using vibe coding to port stuff quicker or them to take longer to perfect it as they go?