Que times.
There’s already so many modes that people us into. “Classic” OW would obliterate que times
If they left OW1 up, you do realize that it would be a dead game. There’s no new content coming to OW1. No new maps, no new heroes, no events, no skins. I doubt they’d even bother with balance changes. All of that would be strictly reserved for OW2.
What’s the point? There’s 3 things that OW1 has that OW2 won’t. Loot boxes, 2cp, and 6v6… That’s it!
What, I suspect, you are really wanting is a 6v6 option in OW2.
Tell that to arcade and custom games. They didn’t seem to get the memo.
To be honest, lately my thinking on the subject has started to gravitate towards support for leaving OW1 as an option to be played and enjoyed by those who prefer it to the “sequel”.
2 Likes
To me, that implies the content listed will be linked to the Battle Pass in some way.
1 Like
You keep bringing this up but you need stratified sampling or a sample large enough to approximate a stratification of the population for it to have statistical significance. Your “many many” represents about 0,0003% of the population. There are more people who played OW2 PVE than your “many many”
Let’s say it’s 1000 people at least. Seems reasonable. That’s enough to have games. Other old games get by with less than that. I still play the original left 4 dead from time to time. (Much prefer it to the sequel) and that has less than 100 players.
- The basic: OW1 requires players to connect to a server for it to be usable and someone has to pay for the server, the room the server occupies and the server’s maintence. Blizzard is not going to keep a server online so 1000-2000 accounts out of the 40 million created can play for free without the possibility of spending money on new things.
- It’s not going to get any content because the engine doesn’t support it. “Oh but I have 6 friends and we don’t care about that”. Yeah, bad news, a company doesn’t spend hundreds of thousands dollars so your 6 friends can play pug games. Even if the game has players on start (All the 200 people who complain on the forums), it’s not going to be sustainable on the long term.
- They’d need to duplicate account information and take care of preventing OW1 info from going to OW2, otherwise people would abuse the low playerbase to farm infinite lootboxes and credits.
1 Like
I like your idea of leaving overwatch 1 as openQ mode only. It makes sense considering that overwatch 2 largely tries to solve problems created by/within Role queue.
2 Likes
The best answer is “business and the related numbers”. “Business” could be broken down to a lot of small details like the unsustainable business model of OW1.
Most of those who played and liked OW1 are bored of it and Blizzard don’t want to maintain an old version of the game for a small group of hardcore OW1 players. The majority of the player base wants something “new” even if the new design isn’t as good as the previous one they got bored of.
Okay then let us host our own servers. I doubt it would be more than $15 per month for a server.
1 Like
Well, I had no idea about this.
This is crazy if it’s true. I seriously hope it’s not true.
It’s not reasonable at all for a game (With server based matches and regional servers) with over 40 million accounts created to be maintained for 1000 players. 1000 people can’t pay the costs of 3 developers to make a anti-cheat and fix matchmaking issues even if they bought the game again.
Wanting OW2 to have a arcade 6v6 or open queue is one thing, another thing is expecting the company to maintain a giant game forever for free
They need everyone in on the new monetization scheme. Otherwise it might not be as profitable.
1 Like
Alright, let us take care of that then.
I would love to say that I hope for it too, but after Diablo Immortal, I do not put anything out of the table for Blizzard anymore.
Back at the launch of OW1, Jeff made a point in ensuring every new hero and map would be free for all players. I’m 102% sure that one of the reasons why they are releasing “Overwatch 2” is to be able to dismiss that promise saying it’s a new game and it no longer applies.
1 Like
That’s not going to happen anytime soon because of branding issues, patents and BNET account info. I personally find it a good idea to have private servers for a game, just don’t think it’s going to happen before the game makes a 10-15 years celebration and they release assets of the vanilla game.
Because it will mean more people play overwatch 2
And here’s the logical fallacy in question.
Tell me, how would removing Overwatch 1 incentivize people to move on to a FREE-TO-PLAY sequel that they had no intention of playing to begin with instead of just pissing them off?
People that don’t want to play Overwatch 2 still aren’t going to want to if they delete the prior game, all it would accomplish would be making those players that wanted to stick with the original angry and less likely to support any projects the company has in the future out of mistrust.
3 Likes
True.
The playerbase has been split ever since the first nerf or buff was made to a certain hero on OW1 (back in 2016) to content players that would complain a lot about a specific hero.
Plus, a lot of people have left the game for different reasons and at different times (controversial reworks, Role Queue, removal of 2CP etc…) and it will keep happening on F2P OW1.
Forcing people to the 5 V 5 with one less tank update when knowing half the playerbase don’t like it won’t keep those players from leaving the game.
It’s a very poor effort from the OW team to keep things from falling apart 'cause they’re putting all their hope in thinking that most people that don’t like said update will stay nonetheless (since there won’t be any OW1 anymore) and of course some will but is it going to be enough in the long run ? Not so sure.
That’s why I don’t buy the whole “don’t want split the playerbase” thingy either.
I also think they’re simply afraid of losing many players if they leave OW1 be, it’s not even about not wanting to split the playerbase, yet not wanting the community to find a way of staying far away from the aggressive Overwatch store that will probably pop up every time you log in (on F2P OW1).
I agree with your entire post. Blizzard and the OW team are simply not confident about that F2P project, it seems, and they’re willing to make any controversial move (that will anger the community) so they can reach their goal (which is selling a lot of useless skins for very little new content in exchange).
We’re the joke for falling for this anyways. No matter how angry we are, they won’t be working harder to release more content, even if we petition to have a full OW sequel game with a real price tag.
Eventually, they have won. We have lost.
4 Likes