When did Blizzard fans lower their standards?

This company once represented the golden standard for PC gaming. They refused to release a product until they felt it was perfect. And when you spent your hard earned money on said product you always knew that everything you paid for would be high quality and worth it.

With the recent mobile game Diablo Immortal and now Overwatch 2 that has gone out the window. These are two of the greediest games in the entire industry and yet some players accept it. I never see any good reason for why they accept it. The most popular excuse is always saying that other games do it to. Well if someone walked out in front of a bus and told you it was safe would you do it too? When did Blizzard games become “every other game”?

Once you accept this as the new standard for Blizzard games you can expect it to become the new normal for all of their future games. I guess some players are fine with that as long as they can rub their pricey skins in the faces of “noobs” though. It’s just sad that that sort of toxic and selfish behavior that was once exclusive to games like Fortnite is now infecting what was once a pretty cool community.

53 Likes

Around 2007 they lowered than standards

1 Like

When a lot of newer gamers decided to accept being cash cows for mediocre games instead of continuing the standard of demanding high quality gameplay at a reasonable box price/subscription. It wasn’t that long ago when even mentioning F2P games got you laughed out of the room.

62 Likes

The fact you are comparing OW 2 to Diablow: Immoral shows you are nothing more than an extremely biased doomer who is just salty you aren’t going to be getting boosted anymore by cheap OW 1 mechanics and now have to adapt or go to wood rank.

10 Likes

It’s “ok doomer”. Get it right. But yeah, thanks for throwing that out there.

3 Likes

You though it was blizzard, but it was ME Konami!

5 Likes

Look I hate many of the changes coming in Overwatch 2, but it was clear that the monitization surrounding OW1 was unsustainable. Lootboxes were way too generous. We were getting to the point where players were earning credits for free faster than Blizzard could produce content to spend it on.

Servers cost money. Producing content costs money. Without a change Overwatch 1 was going to die.

Honestly personally I would have preferred a subscription model, but I understand that would have resulted in a much larger player drop than this solution.

As a consumer, I was never going to like the solution. But if it keeps Overwatch going I can accept it.

4 Likes

They raked in $900 million of pure revenue from OW1 in year 6. I don’t want to hear that it wasn’t sustainable. They were making more from a game they dropped support of 3 years ago than 99% of the games in the industry make in general.

31 Likes

you’re trying way too hard there, buddy

11 Likes

Exactly. If you’re game can’t sustain itself with $900 million in revenue then perhaps that game shouldn’t exist.

Either that, or someone is really bad at financing.

27 Likes

The only thing that I found that concurs with this statement was from a website I’d never heard of before, where they just claim this without any citation or mention of source.

In ABKs own investor reports, Overwatch isn’t even mentioned as a revenue source (though that doesn’t mean it isn’t).

What’s your source on this?

The writing was on the wall when you look at their other games. The starcraft tourney that kept crashing, the warcraft remaster, etc.

1 Like

Why do you think the decision was made to hold the PVE back and allow PVP to go forward? And frankly, OW2 PVP is in better shape by miles than OW1 was at launch…

Or it’s a not about sustaining the game, but chasing more profits for shareholders and executives, and more money won’t translate into more content.

It’s not about making good profits, it’s about making the best possible profits.

11 Likes

Welcome to the business world of gaming kids. In the best scenario it’s a win-win. I hate to say this, but the world operates on this principle: most gain for least effort.

In all fairness OW “2” isnt a new game in any way, shape or form. OW1 was.
OW “2” uses 80+% of OW1’s years of balance and design with small changes ontop of it.

2 Likes

Yeah people invoke these positions to make a point or deny it to fit their argument. IDC anymore, new game, old game, patch, whatever - OW2 is still ahead of OW1 on launch. The fact still stands.

Relativism ahoy.

Its not pay to win and you dont have to worry about cosmetic skins in a first person game

1 Like

Selling stuff is not toxic, you dont need skins for anything

In fornite you can get them for free too, if you play pve you can get even more. They are actually more fair about it than ow. plus skins are worth more in third person so they sell more

I asked the same thing. Apparently they’ve developed some kind of Stockholm syndrome and can’t be broken out of it.

10 Likes