I hear you, but I’ve also never played the same PvP game heavily for 8 years before. I’m past the point of my life where I understand paying for yearly installments of what is mostly the same game. I finally had to give up on CoD after nearly two decades for this reason, though also because every entry since 2009 has been worse than the one before it with like…two exceptions.
It can be both. If its not good enough then it needs more time. To me the ideas were not bad but they never executed it
3 Likes
The whole live service pve thing is a mine-field, only a few made it through to the other end, but they made so much money everyone else is trying their hand at it.
I think the idea was bad. The archive things were great, for an hour, then got boring, quickly.
2 Likes
You made me just realize I have been playing WoW for 16 years now…
…what have I done with my life…?
Then let the players do the devs job for them. Add the PvE Talon and Null Sector units to workshop/custom games and players will make missions for them. Then all the developers have to do is pin the most popular missions each month and announce them to everyone to make them gain popularity. But nope, not even that.
3 Likes
You can’t act smart by asking dumb questions.
1 Like
I would LOVE an OW version of the map editor from starcraft/warcraft. I played those games long beyond my interest in the base game because of the custom map modes.
3 Likes
Can you answer the question
Figure it out, get out from under your rock.
1 Like
Bit weird to play a PVP game only to hope it eventually comes out with PVE when all the PVE thats come out has been meh at best
1 Like
It is, but that is what blizzard promised people, so you can hardly fault them for taking blizzard at their word.
Unreal Tournament, Soldier of Fortune II Double Helix, Medal of Honor, Call of Duty Modern Warfare, all which weren’t live service games nor free to play, yet thrived and had a healthy player base, plus proper PVE campaigns.
The difference is greed. Greed ruins the industry day by day. Greed prevents us from having nice things.
The point here being that if those games could, then so too, can Overwatch, and they proved that they could with OW1. It was far more successful than OW2 is and ever will be, but greed got in the way and so they pushed for a business model that requires cash whales to keep the game service running by over spending every month on new/old cosmetics.
We already have to pay far more than $60 a year to afford all the content aka cosmetics plus the battle passes. which is another point to be made. The old games let you unlock stuff for free as you had already paid full price for the game.
No, you can’t, but you can release a buy to play game and make a sustainable income and still be able to please your player base with the same system that OW1 used, which as i said, proved that it was possible.
When Call of Duty moved to the new business model it hurt the franchise.
The issue at the end of the day, is the move to a live service game model on top of it being free to play. It’s just not as sustainable as some might think, long term.
Planetside 2. Halo Infinite keeps getting regular updates, and faster than Overwatch 2. There are others but those two are the ones i can mention on the top of my head.
As for buy to play games, there are plenty who’ve received free updates for years.
Why? Who says it has to be multiple releases? Most games tend to release one game then a sequel a few years later. Overwatch’s PVE should obviously be a completely separate game. A stand alone title and priced at $69, which would actually sell quite well considering how popular OW1 was and how much people still want to explore the world of Overwatch in an RPG setting, if the internet is anything to go by these days.
Blizzard is missing out on one hell of an opportunity here.
4 Likes
Well people are mad on the forums but the game actually seems to have about as many players as it did before. On console they rank the most played online games and it didnt even move much from ow1-ow2. Right now today its still in about the same spot as it was for most of ow1
Yup. No monetization = no content.
I.e. Why OW1 had that long content drought.
1 Like
I honestly think that’s exactly why they made it free to play because they knew they weren’t going to be able to do the PvE for w/e reason so to avoid any lawsuits they just slapped a BP and xtransaction to get more money I still think it’s greed. There’s nothing I trust about Bl$$ any more. Nothing they’ve done in the past would make me think they actually care about making a quality game and satisfying their customers. The very people that keep their company alive.
Whoops, sorry. I did play WoW from Vanilla up until Shadowlands. Not fully a PvP game, but still.
This is a stupid argument.
They literally did release continuous free content for years and were making money. 3 years after launch of OW1, they generated a billion dollars off of loot boxes ALONE. And this was almost a year after they slowed down on content, too. People were still interested in buying loot boxes for cosmetics. If they updated the loot box pool + kept updating the game, people would have continued to buy them.
They were generating money hand over fist from OW merchandise, OWL was doing well financially (before they got greedy and moved it off of Twitch), and they could have also released special cosmetics for sale and if Pink Mercy was any indication, they would have generated money too.
But to answer your question - I’d rather have kept OW1 and just paid for a new expansion every few years.
2 Likes
There is truth to that but now they killed PVE because of the new owner. MS killed this, the pve team wasnt making the money a new owner would want.
Thats a pretty convient excuse to just ax the whole thing. It would have been hard for blizzard to tell the whole team they are fired and they are cutting losses. A new owner will do it though without apologizing to anyone
If it meant better content, sure.
They never really tried. The higher-ups blocked the development of the PVE.
4 Likes