But what financial incentive does Blizzard have to care about that?
Correct. Though i personally don’t like 5v5 itself as an idea to begin with, the reworks, restructures and changes being forced to accomodate it is actually the parts of the situation i detest the most.
For example, i personally enjoy the presence of CC and barriers, as it makes it so things aren’t dying constantly and teams don’t lose a fight after just a single pick.
Them removing moba elements and leaning more heavily into the fps genre is my biggest complaint personally, and i have no desire to force others to accept it in the sequel if they don’t want it, as long as they leave the original the way it is for those of us that enjoy it that way.
4 Likes
If we take account the current beta…I like OW1 way more.
I like the 6vs6 more than 5vs5
OW2 looks like a different game instead OW. One that I dont like:
- OW2 lost the essence of a moba with the current tanks being super DPS and the supports that are usefull are the ones that can do a lot of damage (Mercy is a joke on OW2).
- The CCs helped to keep away fast dps…now no more.
- The barriers allowed play defensive as well keep safe supports and other dps from snipers. Is true that barriers needed a nerf…but totally erasing them is a bit too much ahha.
- OW is a damage orgy…It is CRAZY. Sometimes looks like a “walking from the spawn simulator”
- Less teamplay needed.
- Less strategy needed with the destruction of defensive gameplay (gameplay you can control if you separe barrier tanks from brawlers and only one of each is allowed), barriers and CCs
Pleasy blizz,come back to OW1 and jsut balance it
5 Likes
Corrected: Delete Overwatch 2 and keep playing Overwatch 1 is more stable and enjoyable.
3 Likes
They would be losing possibly future financial gain from those consumers on other products and projects if they alienate them completely.
i.e. people would be less likely to, say, buy another diablo game, or an overwatch figurine, if they don’t like Blizzard as a whole because of the choices they made handling other things.
3 Likes
The only thing i can think about that is a bit of a stretch is maybe they dont want to have to pay other console companies to release a new game so instead they release overwatch 2 as a overwatch 1 “update”. Yea thats the only thing thats kimda kinda reasonable since clearly there becoming greedy yea thats the only thing i can think about and its a stretch.
Do you think people who freak out about paid skins are gonna buy much anyways?
Whoa, is this true? I haven’t really been keeping up since the first beta. Are they actually paywalling heroes now? That would change my opinion about a lot. Last I had heard they were only doing cosmetics.
1 Like
because noone will play ow2 if the give them the choice
2 Likes
The problem is that OW1 and OW2 are not even different enough to be called separate games. The PvE game isn’t the same game sure but it’s also not a reason to not just upgrade everything to being called OW2.
2 Likes
They are already splitting the playerbase already by shutting down OW1 in the process of starting up OW2, and they know it. They are betting that going F2P will offset whatever player loss hits the existing OW playerbase by eating into the Valorant, CS:GO, and APEX markets, which are also F2P.
I personally prefer Overwatch 1, but its playerbase has stagnated because of lack of new content, and the new heroes and hero reworks which have consistently split the original playerbase and have made OW1 the shell of what it used to be.
So Activision-Blizzard hopes 5v5 and the shift to team deathmatch will attract Valorant, CS:GO and APEX players, and will eventually result in OW 2 ranking in the top 10 of F2P shooters instead of its current rank of being in the top 15.
It’s a good marketing plan, the only thing I resent about these moves is that it leaves the original casual OW1 community in the dust. But then, Blizzard has NEVER been good at managing its casual communities, with the possible exception of SC1 and SC2 – RTS games with enthusiastic grassroots support which grew because Blizzard took a pretty much hands-off approach on its competitive scene.
I agree, and PvE is the only feature I am looking forward to in OW2. Still, Blizzard needs to relaunch the game to attract other players from other shooters. Personally, I think just going F2P is sufficient to attain that goal.
The only rationale I can think of is that they need to rebrand OW+ to OW2 so that its existing playerbase will fork over money to Activision-Blizzard. Personally, I’m waiting until the PvE content comes out before I think OW is worth spending on again.
2 Likes
Trust me as much as I appreciate they exist…
How else will Blizzard boast about the “30 million” GoTY sales if a lot of players will stick with OW1?
3 Likes
The reason they want to delete OW 1 is they feel cheated out of money due to a “mistake” on their part by not making it a battle pass riddled mess that psychologically eggs you on to spend more money.
So now they are “upgrading” it and ensuring none of us can escape it if we want to continue experiencing the game.
It’s the Activision way. Just look at the mess CoD is. That is where they want Overwatch to go.
4 Likes
This is honestly the biggest reason.
OW1 won’t be around because Blizz doesn’t want to spend money on upkeep and balance.
The only way OW1 can stick around is if it’s part of the Arcade. But then they would need to choose a state of OW1 that will not receive any balance patches. Maybe the last game state before OW2 launch? If they did this, I’d imagine it would get pretty boring very quickly. No one wants to play OW1 with no balance changes. We pretty much have this already and it’s getting boring already.
I thought it might be for technical reasons but I do not see anything that can justify that.
OW1 and OW2 will draw from the same database anyway so you will still keep your unlocks even if both games are active.
This is what it is, but the reason is this. Blizzard realizes that they’ve made alot of bad mistakes. Not just with Overwatch, but with their other games as well. So they can’t keep the old game around. They need to be able to say that Overwatch 2 is a success. They don’t want to have to say “Overwatch 2 is a success, but yeah the old game is still around too”.
There’s a portion of people who prefer Overwatch 1, but will likely move to Overwatch 2 once the first is trashed. And Blizzard desperately needs that group.
It doesn’t take much to spend money on upkeep, and Blizzard have old games which have NEVER been balanced for YEARS. Old games which have servers for online play – SC1, SC2, Heart of the Storm, Diablo 3.
So to reiterate, spending server space to continue old games isn’t a big deal for Blizzard. And the reason for that is because for any large organization like Blizzard, servers and its administration is a fixed overhead.
1 Like
If that were the case the game wouldn’t be steadily losing players to other games over the past four years. Even with a solid gameplay loop, having nothing new to look forward to is key in getting bored with a game.
It’s rare that games that don’t add new content succeed, and those that do are usually pushed solely by community made content.
It’s not just a result of players being conditioned by content creators. It’s the reality of most players in general, across the gaming landscape. A good gameplay loop will capture SOME players for a while, but no change is how you kill a game.
2 Likes