Word has finally broken on the business model of Blizzard’s upcoming team shooter, Overwatch. They will sell it as such:

$40 digital download (full game, PC only)

$60 “Origins” Edition (full game, bonus skins, PC, PS4, and Xbox1)

$? Collector’s Edition (Origins + statue, soundtrack, artbook, etc.)

The good news is easy to find. Each edition comes with all 21 heroes available to play at launch. That means a lot less grinding for players, and unlike in Blizzard’s Heroes of the Storm, immediate access to any ranked ladder, since you don’t have to unlock anything.

Unfortunately, the bad news is easy to spot as well. The first one is easy—anybody that wants to play the game needs to shell out at least $40, and more on consoles. That’s not a small number, and for people unsure of whether they want to play the game, it might be too high. Compared to games that are free-to-play, which can be uninstalled with minimal consequences, games like Overwatch provide no recompense should they prove without merit to the end user.

Of course, this model also draws similar comparisons to another game from Blizzard, StarCraft 2. It was released back in 2010 for a set price as well, and sold well into the millions. However, it’s important to keep in mind that SC2 had a single player campaign in addition to a rich multiplayer, along with an arcade and map editor for limitless replayability potential. Overwatch, in comparison, appears to only be multiplayer, which significantly limits the experience of its users.

In any esport, lowering the barrier to entry as much as possible is ideal. And a $40 price tag is pretty prohibitive, especially when the offerings (at least initially) are so scant. The game may flesh out over time, but most games of this model rely on first day, week, and month sales to survive.

There’s another problem too, and that’s the competition Overwatch is facing. Currently, the options for those that want to play a class-based, team shooter are limited, with Team Fortress 2 as the only real notable standout. But that will soon change, as there are many games currently in development that will seek to challenge OW: Paladins, Battleborn, Gigantic, just to name a few.

Many of those are going to be free-to-play. And if there’s anything that the gaming industry has proven in the last few years, it’s that free-to-play games, with in-game stores that support the developer through microtransactions, are king. League of Legends and, hell, even Blizzard’s own Hearthstone have shown that these models are loved by consumers and provide longevity.

Perhaps the most concerning part of this problem, too, is Blizzard’s own resistance to this line of thinking. Game director Jeff Kaplan even stated that having an in-game store with purchasable heroes “couldn’t be further from the truth.” It’s these kinds of statements that draw serious concern.

The final problem is a big one, and it’s a little more complicated than the rest—it’s the model itself. It is my opinion that a static release model is horrible for esports. It introduces many problems, particularly within the competitive sphere. And when expansions get involved, esports gets major problems.

Competitive games are always best-served by a model that encourages constant revision—updating rules, balancing heroes, etc. That’s why free-to-play competitive games are so successful: because people can put them down so easily, the game needs to be constantly changing and fixing any broken pieces as fast as possible to keep people around and playing as much as possible. Having as many players as you can is the best way to continue to get revenue from those microtransactions.

Conversely, a game that only has major releases in the form of an initial launch and subsequent expansion does not encourage constant revision—instead, it encourages stalling things as long as possible to get more people to buy into those releases. In StarCraft 2, for example, only the most recent expansion, Legacy of the Void, has features squarely aimed at casual players, which has been a major outcry from its fanbase. Still, those features took over five years to make it into the game.

This delay has cost StarCraft players. Rough estimates have sales of the initial release of StarCraft 2 at around six million. Total sales of it’s first expansion? Only 1.5 million. That’s a 75% drop in players.

I’d hate to see Overwatch travel that same trajectory. And while much of Blizzard’s plans for the game are still undecided and unclear, the current business model of the game leaves much to be desired. Best case scenario: they’ve already found ways to address the above concerns.

Worst case scenario, though, is that we’re just playing something else this time next year.