That.
Interesting, lessening his dependency on lucio while still giving him room for more playstyles. Currently you very rarely are moving with shield, it’s only viable with speed boost as I’m sure was the point of your post.
Without it you have no risk playstyle (stand at corner and let dps carry) or high risk (corner charge and firestrike combos for a lot of shatters…and then get immediately hard countered if you’re good at it). Makes sense to me.
2x Winston was complained about; 6 D.va was literally the reason that removed hero stacking; Winston/ D.va Dive got us launch Brig; Orisa/ Roadhog comps; Sigma/ Orisa
The ONLY tanks that didn’t get complaints were Rein and Zarya
Imagine picking a role where the only heroes who people would want 24/7 is 2 of them
1 Like
Youre literally just objectively wrong lol
And people even complained about her
Rein is the one and only tank, that nobody complains about, or if someone did complain it was cause they got diffed.
This is why Rein is the best tank
at this point, i dont even care about 5v5 or 6v6. i just want my OW1 features and UI back, give me back LFG, general chat, and my old beautiful UI.
4 Likes
And why do you think supports are favored? Why did they get buffs to begin with? Could it be, perhaps, that they were overlooked? Could it be that OW2 started with a DPS passive that was so strong it had to be nerfed and then ultimately removed?
Did everyone forget how OW2 launched?
If discussions of 6v6 returning are being censored then why do I have to hear about it 27 million times a day
2 Likes
But that’s one season. Not 7 seasons. I put that in my post already. Dude read before you cry please. Yeah a very strong passive. Like for hanzo who always reloads after a shot is taken. 
1 Like
Lotta people thought so they just started the conversation
1 Like
My favorite aspect of this is that everyone involved with OWL was begging for F2P, and being extremely condescending to anyone skeptical of F2P, all because they thought it was necessary to save the esports scene. They would openly brag that they didn’t care if it made the actual game worse, the fact that it would bring in more players, and thus more viewers, was absolutely necessary for OWL to survive.
I was an OWL fan for years, from day one. I was a fan of a lot of those guys. But the way they behaved toward people who were against F2P was extremely nasty, and I felt an immense amount of satisfaction when the league imploded because of that. They cheered on the demise of this game, and berated anyone who was against it, so I refuse to feel bad for even a single second that they got exactly what they asked for, and the result was the exact opposite of what they thought. They absolutely deserved it.
I will never forget the year-plus of insults directed at me from all these people, and all their fans, including all the big “positivity” guys who make being nice part of their brand.
6 Likes
The DPS passive wasn’t even removed until this season… the mobility portion was nerfed but they kept the extra reload speed, which was buffed after removing the extra mobility.
And that passive was so trash it was replaced for something else. Good argument man. Really making your point known.
1 Like
Overwatch sold 7 million units in the launch week, had sold 25 million units 8 months after it came out, and had sold 30 million total units 11 months after it came out. If that’s not growth, I don’t know what is.
Or do you mean the unattainable goal of infinite growth year after year after year? Because eventually all games are going to stop growing. It’d be real convenient if the line between growth that you count as good and growth that you count as bad lies right between Overwatch and a bunch of free to play titles, wouldn’t it?
4 Likes
I think by definition this is what we call gaslighting lol.
It’s nice and cute though but since the reason for the sequel is gone it means that the move to 5v5 is 100% unjustified no matter what and that means people are going to quadruple down on demanding that 6v6 comes back. It’s not going to stop until we get it back. That’s the bare minimum too. End of.
1 Like
ok but why would they want to do that?
Even rein/zarya was complained about. A huge portion of the playerbase felt like they were in “rein/zarya” jail. Metal ranks didn’t play dive or any other more advanced comp often, at least not at a decent enough level to make it worth picking over rein/zarya.
It’s nice and cute that you think the only reason for Overwatch 2 was the PVE lol. If that was the case they would have just kept releasing PVP content… but that just disintegrates your whole argument huh…
1 Like
keep complaining and blizz will make it 4v4 soon
So 7 million in first week
Then 25 million (+18 million) after 8 months
Then 30 million (+5 million) after 11 months
What were the sales like after 2 yrs, 3 yrs, 4 yrs??? What was the actual growth of the game. Great it came out strong in it first year. Thats normal. Live service games have to grow year on year or at minimum stay equal.
Ow1 didnt. It started to stumble after its first couple years.
Infinite growth is definitely unsustainable i agree but thats why live service games are free and supported through microtransactions and not box sales. Box sales are finite and will eventually dry up. Skin sales dont. That is why ow1 being a boxed product with weak monetisation sunk the game and why ow2 couldnt be a boxed game
Ow1 after a year or 2 couldnt grow much further which meant they werent making many game sales. The only other avenue ow1 had to make money was lootboxes but by 2018 people stopped buying them because they were able to earn everything by playing
So the game wasnt making many new box sales, and lootbox sales dried up. Where is the game now making money? It wasnt. So they stopped updating it and focused on ow2 making it f2p with cosmetics as its main revenue source which is a sustainable business model
It wasn’t a live service game. It was a premium boxed product. OW2 didn’t “save” anything, it turned a traditional game into a live service game. OW1 was one of the top ten best selling games of all time. By the standard of traditional boxed games, it was a smash hit.
You know how Elden Ring was the big phenomenon a couple years ago? OW1 sold more than that. You know how Mario Kart 8 has been in the top ten best selling games almost every week since it launched? It’s sold about equal with OW1.
This is so completely ignorant of how video games sell, it’s almost not worth responding to. OW1 was not a live service game. It was a premium game.
IT DID NOT SINK. THAT’S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. It was one of the top ten best selling games of all time!!! Just putting a 2 on the box and selling it for $70 would have sold more boxed copies than 99% of all other games.
That’s why you make a sequel. That’s how the entire industry operated until fairly recently, and how most of it STILL operates. That’s not “failure,” that’s just reality.
Gamers are so incredibly dumb. You guys look at a game going through the exact cycle as every other game ever released, and somehow label that “failure.” Beyond ignorant. After a few years, you make a sequel. That’s how you sell video games. That’s how you’ve always sold video games. There was no failure. They made a game, it sold better than 99.9999999999% of all other games. There is no universe where that can be a failure, even if every player dropped off after week one (which didn’t happen).
1 Like