Kotaku is fake news. They claim they’re gaming portal, but their articles are rarely about gaming, and rarely non-biased.
Naah, as a customer you have the right to always demand more and better. But in my opinion, these past 3 years of OW were ok(ish), compared to other games …
Customers have the right to not be satisfied with services received, and demand more and better value for their money, nothing wrong there 
I think most would have hard time making a list of games that fit those requirements…especially in the age of yearly sequels…and I wouldnt say grateful…I’d just say you got more than $60 worth (especially if you’re still playing 3 years later)…and especially when you consider what $60 used to get you…
Hell I just recently paid 60$ to play a link game that gave me 24 hrs worth of content…last I checked I have about 2000 hrs sunk into overwatch for the same price…do you know how much that same amount of time cost me playing WoW (that also got comparable amount of updates - it is the same company)…I’ll give you a hint…a LOT MORE
Ummm… wow, if there was any doubt this guy is completely incompetent he just mercilessly squashed it. You really have to suffer from some kind of mental retardation in order to claim you can put a liiiiive-service game in “stasis”. Does he really believe that the playerbase will just come flocking back with DLC after years of being spat on the face and ignored by the devs?
Even a game like TF2 is hard to put in “stasis” because people lost interest and the brand starts dying, and that is an actually good game that can manage it self in auto-pilot. Putting a game like Overwatch in “stasis”, in the state it is in, is like putting a human in “stasis”. Sure you can do it, just don’t expect it to be alive when you come back for it.
The fact that this is what passes for a leader in today’s Blizzard is why the company keeps, and will keep, going further and further down the death spiral.
Or maybe we’re just not spoilt children who think it’s reasonable to expect everything for free for the rest of eternity.
Nor do I, I can go on for hours about how Hearthstone costing 500€ per year to get all the cards is ridiculously overpriced and predatory, and that WoW definitely hasn’t been earning the money they earn with their monthly subscriptions AND paid expansions.
But none of that is true of Overwatch. Overwatch had a single purchase cost that covered everything you got on release and also nearly 4 years of (admittedly somewhat slow) development. It will also cover whatever development we get for the next year or two or however long it takes them to finish Overwatch 2.
How in the world do you think that’s sustainable in the long term?
Nothing wrong there, sure. Nothing wrong with the fact that I think they’re behaving like spoilt children either.
Hyperbole.
Nobody said “for an eternity.”
And Overwatch putting out a steady amount of content its first year to encourage sales and then slowing that down isn’t predatory to you?
Sure, let’s pretend like Overwatch doesn’t have Lootboxes, OWL, sponsorships, ads, etc.
You mean when games were released complete and without gambling mechanics instead of pushing slot machines onto you and asking you to fork up full price for a game with barely any content because “future updates” that they just admitted they abandoned to make a DLC you will have to pay as a full game instead?
Yeah I will take that option. Too bad Overwatch is nothing like that.
The thing you really have to ask. Why wasn’t the team expanded on. So that both 1 and 2 can be worked on easily. Since they didn’t do that. All I can take is Activision/Bliz doesn’t really care about OW. Due to low income gained from it.
Someone is not listening…
The duration is not the issue. The quality given in that duration is the issue.
They dropped 9 multiplayer maps in just under four years. 9… that is not a lot. Especially considering it started with only 12.
If you are going to tell me that not even doubling the number of maps is four years of content… then you are nothing but a blind corporate shill who is wreckless with their wallet.
If the rumors are true, and OW2 is a year to two years out, I do not see the franchise thriving ever again. OW has been listing hard to port for over a year now itself, and I don’t see all that lost traction being magically erased by some pseudo-expansion coming out in the (in videogame terms) far future.
Well, if you got the game on release it cost you 60$ or whatever.
That covered everything you got on release AND 4 years of development. It will also cover all the content we receive for the 1-2 years before OW2 and all the PVP content afterwards for the foreseeable future.
I think it’s fair to say at least 6-8 years of content that fits into the idea of what “Overwatch 1” is, would you agree with that?
So then my question to you is this. If not “for an eternity”, how long do you think the 60$ you paid should be sufficient to get completely free content for?
Content release schedule is tied to the success of a game. When the game is selling like crazy, the release schedule is fast. Once that slows down, the development has to slow down too, and the developer has to figure out a new way to bring revenue in, or stop the development completely. Those are the two options from a business point of view.
What’s not an option, however, is continuing to employ a massive number of developers, artists, writers and other staff while the player numbers dwindle and new purchases stop coming in, which is the natural progression of a game post-release, since there’s a limited pool of players interested in a game like Overwatch (or any other game). It’s just not sustainable.
So to answer your question, no, having more content in the first year after release which then slows down somewhat is not predatory, it’s unavoidable if you’re not charging for said content.
Surely you’re not dishonest enough to suggest you believe lootboxes bring any significant revenue to Overwatch anymore? How many players do you know that still buy lootboxes at this stage of the game?
As for OWL (and ads, sponsorships, and presumably ‘etc’ as well, which you listed separately to inflate the list despite the fact that they’re entirely tied to OWL): Sure, that brings some revenue to the game. It’s a bit of a symbiotic relationship.
Interest in the game increases interest in OWL which brings more revenue which can support the development of the game. However, this is a system that diminishes over time. OWL revenue is limited, and the profits it brings after all the expenses involved in it will only cover a certain amount of development.
This translates into a regular stream of content, which will still result in decreasing player numbers, because that’s the natural progression of things. There’s a limited pool of players interested in playing Overwatch, and most of those will lose interest eventually. It happens with every form of entertainment, the vast majority of people interested in it will lose interest eventually, there’s very few players that can play the same game forever.
No matter how you want to look at it, this system is only sustainable for a period of time, after which the revenue it generates will no longer be sufficient to support running the game, and the game will die.
Unless the developers figure out a new way to bring in revenue.
Sequels (which is the correct term to use) typically reinvigorate multiplayer games all the time.
Its funny to me though whenever someone talks about the MP merging as though it lessens what they game is because what they are accidentally asking is for OW to do what every other MP game does just to pretend to have more stuff ie shut down servers for OW1, copy most of the heroes in OW1 and add a few token ones for 2, add in some new maps and later port over the favorite ones of the community packaged as “new” content. THAT is the formula most games have done with their sequels and OW is being far more consumer friendly then that and people are acting like its a bad thing.
If lootboxes aren’t bringing in revenue anymore that’s 100% Blizzard’s fault. At this point, if you have been playing for 2/2.5 years, you have everything. I have been getting duplicate-boxes for over a year and a half now. I get everything every event with minimal playing needed because i have SO MANY coins on my account at all times that I could buy out almost 2 events straight if I needed to.
And any new accounts these days are not real new accounts. They are duplicate players on multiple accounts who won’t care about cosmetics on any account but their main.
There is NO reason to buy lootboxes anymore, as all I’d be doing is paying money for 20 coins a box. MAYBE if Blizzard kept up with a 2-3 times a year release of stuff like Blizzard World brought to the base lootboxes (mind you this happened ONE time in 3.5 years), there would constantly be stuff to unlock, giving more of a reason for people to choose to buy lootboxes.
Like this could have easily been something that happened with both of the non-Archives maps a year (since that map got skins via the Archive event). Even this twice a year lootbox drop would be quite enough.
At least at minimum a full 3 years of support rather than 1 followed by 3-4 years of life support.
Edit. Especially since they mentioned 10 years before Summer Games 2016 blew up in their faces.
You just made a case for why OW shouldn’t have been a live service game. it should have been a Single player/Multi Player game. And made games every 2-3 years. Because since the money isn’t there to pump out content. I’d rather have two full games over four years. Instead of 1 game that can’t sustain people over 4 years.
9 maps. And that’s all you got right? It’s not like you got:
That’s all in addition to stuff you already got when you purchased the game. and is all stuff you’ll continue receiving until Overwatch 2.
And then of course, we have to look at what Overwatch 2 will bring you for free:
You’ll get all of that for just the 60$ you paid if you bought the game on release.
How much more do you expect? Serious question, how much more content would you require to be happy with what you paid for?
I think you’re using the phrase “4 years of development” fairly liberally here, TBH.
Based on what was given / shown for the first two years? Yes. Based on what has been shown from 2018 to present? No, I would not agree with that.
The content isn’t free if you’ve paid for it. Nor is it free if they’re still earning money from the players.
I’d argue that you could say the opposite is true, too. Content slowed down, so the game’s sales have slowed down.
That’s not how that works.
I disagree entirely. There are multiple games which have the same model as Overwatch and still put out a steady stream of content.
Anymore? No. But the first year or so when they were actually putting out content? They contributed significant revenue, yes. If the devs actually put out a decent amount of skins / cosmetics then the sales would still be there.
Heck, I’d still be buying lootboxes if they actually put stuff in them. But because they’ve put less and less into the game, I’ve been able to get pretty much everything.
That isn’t a good way to handle things.
So you’re alleging that Blizzard doesn’t see any money from OWL?
They could bring in revenue by adding more to the game they already have, rather than letting it stagnate for two years because they (admitted) were working on the sequel title.
Just a thought.
It turned out that adding stuff to the game was more difficult than they thought or is Titan finally coming to life? Jeff said he learned a lot from Failing at Titan. So is he pushing for his Titan game now or what.
I like to think the slip of having the game be PvP and another be PvE isn’t just because financial reasons, but also because Overwatch is an original IP for the company, especially in terms of FPS. Blizz have been wanted to try it out for years with the idea of the cancelled Starcraft: Ghost game which was like, what, fifteen years ago? Heck, they tried it again with Titan, which failed and turned into Overwatch.
So I think OW1 really was an experiment really. Blizz never got a FPS before and OW showed they could finally do it. It’s taken 3+ years and OWL, yet OW2 is the product of Blizz learning lessons from OW1. (And Activision wanting that sequel $$$)
Everyone here has pretty much answered the same thing, that I’ve seen.
We’d be fine with OW2 if they hadn’t been lacking on content in this game + admitted the reason why it stagnated was because of OW2.
You keep saying “how much more content” like there’s an easy answer. Truth is, we don’t know what we could have gotten if they continued to put in the amount of effort they did in the first 1.5 years of the game’s life.
But off the top of my head: updated holiday events, a few more maps, at least 2 Support / 2 tanks released with 2-2-2, and a crapton more cosmetics.