Don't talk about the Scrimgod like that. He's just saving up those scrimbucks so he can pop off in 3 weeks.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
How about this for a Baptiste nerf if they won't change the cooldown or radius; you can't drop below 20% health but you can't go above 70% health either. This also limits his insanely quick ult build.
Not much detail on OW2 except to say that it features a greater emphasis on L4D-style PvE. I'm really interested to see how they make that work better than it has in the events so far. My bet: core Overwatch remains what it is today and supports cross-play with OW2. But OW2 adds a full PvE mode with overhauled gameplay, maybe some other modes as well. I think they'll have to figure out a way to get progression and gear in there - for instance, maybe the characters get standardized a bit with less powerful skills but a lot of customization in their loadouts. Something like Apex Legend's approach to class design.
I have a hard time seeing them already going to Overwatch 2, there's no reason to when OWL is still going strong, but a sorta side-game with a focus on more PvE would be cool
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
If they're indeed doing a big PvE Overwatch thing, I can't imagine they'll call it Overwatch 2. If you do, then what happens with Overwatch 1? Does OWL shift over to 2? Do they stop developing heroes and maps for 1? They've put so much work into it, they would have to introduce it as a second pillar in the Overwatch franchise. It couldn't be marketed as a sequel while you keep OG Overwatch running.
Baptiste is both high floor (meaning you need to understand his kit fairly well to be at all useful) and highly situational, he doesn't need and won't get a nerf anytime soon.
Blizzard only does sequels once every 10 years, there won't be an official Overwatch 2 anytime soon.
These are my Overwatch-related "anytime soon" predictions.
The engine is so quirky and weird about some things, maybe they can iron it out a bit?
0
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
I could see OW2 basically being the same (and probably porting over everybody's skins and accounts and things) but they add all this team PvE stuff which necessitated a revamped engine, and thus a separate game.
I guess I'm not suuuuper sure why this is surprising anyone; Overwatch is three years old at this point, if they didn't have some people working on a sequel by now I'd think Blizzard was crazy. That doesn't mean OW2 is anywhere near to seeing the light of day, though. It still could very well be years before we see it released, knowing the company.
Knowing they cancelled a SC FPS is a bit of a blow to the gut, though.
I guess I'm not suuuuper sure why this is surprising anyone; Overwatch is three years old at this point, if they didn't have some people working on a sequel by now I'd think Blizzard was crazy. That doesn't mean OW2 is anywhere near to seeing the light of day, though. It still could very well be years before we see it released, knowing the company.
Knowing they cancelled a SC FPS is a bit of a blow to the gut, though.
I don't think Overwatch particularly needs a sequel right now. Obviously, they have numbers and dollars and whatnot, but my impression is that it's going strong.
Jason Schraier is the biggest name in games journalism right now, if he's reporting it I believe it. I don't think OW cosmetics are pulling in the big bucks these days. They haven't invested much energy into the events in years.
I think they could call it Overwatch 2 but it behaves more like an expansion, where most of what it adds is outside the core game modes (namely PvE), and anything they do change in the core game mode goes to OW1 as well with crossplay support. Maybe new characters could be OW2 only or some other way to sweeten the pot to get people to switch.
Jason Schraier is the biggest name in games journalism right now, if he's reporting it I believe it. I don't think OW cosmetics are pulling in the big bucks these days. They haven't invested much energy into the events in years.
I think they could call it Overwatch 2 but it behaves more like an expansion, where most of what it adds is outside the core game modes (namely PvE), and anything they do change in the core game mode goes to OW1 as well with crossplay support. Maybe new characters could be OW2 only or some other way to sweeten the pot to get people to switch.
This would run entirely counter to their business model of giving you the stuff that affects the game for free and only along you to pay for pure cosmetics if you want.
There is no reason for this to be called Overwatch 2 for real. He or Blizzard are probably just using it as a placeholder name.
Jason Schraier is the biggest name in games journalism right now, if he's reporting it I believe it. I don't think OW cosmetics are pulling in the big bucks these days. They haven't invested much energy into the events in years.
I think they could call it Overwatch 2 but it behaves more like an expansion, where most of what it adds is outside the core game modes (namely PvE), and anything they do change in the core game mode goes to OW1 as well with crossplay support. Maybe new characters could be OW2 only or some other way to sweeten the pot to get people to switch.
This would run entirely counter to their business model of giving you the stuff that affects the game for free and only along you to pay for pure cosmetics if you want.
There is no reason for this to be called Overwatch 2 for real. He or Blizzard are probably just using it as a placeholder name.
That's their business model for this game, nobody said this game would continue to grow forever. I'm honestly not sure why people are expecting that. No other game of theirs has ever done that - actually all of their other games have made people pay for new multiplayer content when it's expansion time.
+3
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
I guess I'm not suuuuper sure why this is surprising anyone; Overwatch is three years old at this point, if they didn't have some people working on a sequel by now I'd think Blizzard was crazy. That doesn't mean OW2 is anywhere near to seeing the light of day, though. It still could very well be years before we see it released, knowing the company.
Knowing they cancelled a SC FPS is a bit of a blow to the gut, though.
I don't think Overwatch particularly needs a sequel right now. Obviously, they have numbers and dollars and whatnot, but my impression is that it's going strong.
It doesn't need a sequel right now, no. But will it in a year? Two years? Three? Blizzard takes a long time making games. Keep in mind they haven't even intended on announcing this game yet.
Sequels are pretty much part and parcel with not being a F2P game. That's the arrangement, you pay them the sticker price for the game and some amount of support, but eventually they're going to need you to re-up before they keep working on the game. The exception is if the monetization is exceptionally successful and they then transition to F2P like TF2 did. But I haven't gotten the sense that Overwatch's cosmetics are a smash hit for them.
0
Options
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I don't see it that way. Business model aside, games continue to be developed after they are released now. Exactly what are sequels supposed to accomplish now that a major content patch cannot accomplish? If they just wanted more money they could do something like an expansion, or they could fix their business model to make it where people actually want to continue to spend money after they buy the game. But just "Here's a sequel nobody asked for, please give us another $60 now" kind of comes off as a bit too greedy to me, especially if it happens at the same time vanilla OW stops getting major updates.
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
I don't see it that way. Business model aside, games continue to be developed after they are released now. Exactly what are sequels supposed to accomplish now that a major content patch cannot accomplish? If they just wanted more money they could do something like an expansion, or they could fix their business model to make it where people actually want to continue to spend money after they buy the game. But just "Here's a sequel nobody asked for, please give us another $60 now" kind of comes off as a bit too greedy to me, especially if it happens at the same time vanilla OW stops getting major updates.
Engine/visual updates, major gameplay overhauls or additions, rejuvenated player base and consumer interest. These are very few of the many things that are easier to accomplish with a new game over a large update, and a big part of that (though I'd argue not the biggest part) is a wash of new funding from people buying a new game, both old and new customers. "Here's this new game with this new stuff" sounds a lot more enticing to many consumers than "here's a bunch of new stuff to this game you got bored of a while ago."
Jason Schraier is the biggest name in games journalism right now, if he's reporting it I believe it. I don't think OW cosmetics are pulling in the big bucks these days. They haven't invested much energy into the events in years.
I think they could call it Overwatch 2 but it behaves more like an expansion, where most of what it adds is outside the core game modes (namely PvE), and anything they do change in the core game mode goes to OW1 as well with crossplay support. Maybe new characters could be OW2 only or some other way to sweeten the pot to get people to switch.
This would run entirely counter to their business model of giving you the stuff that affects the game for free and only along you to pay for pure cosmetics if you want.
There is no reason for this to be called Overwatch 2 for real. He or Blizzard are probably just using it as a placeholder name.
That's their business model for this game, nobody said this game would continue to grow forever. I'm honestly not sure why people are expecting that. No other game of theirs has ever done that - actually all of their other games have made people pay for new multiplayer content when it's expansion time.
I'm specifically talking about the part that I bolded. Expansions are one thing. If they release a fleshed out PvE mode and want people to pay then great. People will pay for that, I probably will. What is counter to their model is locking out people from new characters if they don't buy the "new" game. That's bullshit. If they want to make it a new game then that's fine. The crossplay nonsense doesn't work.
I'd be ok with a re-up. I got heaps of value from my first purchase, and if a whole new game is what's needed to justify Blizzard's investment AND fix the remaining fundamental design issues AND make old players consider afresh that game they abandoned before Blizzard addressed plenty of the game's major problems well....
I'd pay for a fresh start. There should definitely be some extras goodies, but I can't begrudge Blizzard for turning off the life support and moving on.
They've spent way too much money on OWL branding to replace Overwatch with a sequel. This isn't like Destiny where the content treadmill is the only thing keeping people playing so just making a replacement title makes sense
They've spent way too much money on OWL branding to replace Overwatch with a sequel. This isn't like Destiny where the content treadmill is the only thing keeping people playing so just making a replacement title makes sense
I don't know if I follow this. Why couldn't OWL ultimately transition to also cover a sequel title?
Jason Schraier is the biggest name in games journalism right now, if he's reporting it I believe it. I don't think OW cosmetics are pulling in the big bucks these days. They haven't invested much energy into the events in years.
I think they could call it Overwatch 2 but it behaves more like an expansion, where most of what it adds is outside the core game modes (namely PvE), and anything they do change in the core game mode goes to OW1 as well with crossplay support. Maybe new characters could be OW2 only or some other way to sweeten the pot to get people to switch.
This would run entirely counter to their business model of giving you the stuff that affects the game for free and only along you to pay for pure cosmetics if you want.
There is no reason for this to be called Overwatch 2 for real. He or Blizzard are probably just using it as a placeholder name.
That's their business model for this game, nobody said this game would continue to grow forever. I'm honestly not sure why people are expecting that. No other game of theirs has ever done that - actually all of their other games have made people pay for new multiplayer content when it's expansion time.
I'm specifically talking about the part that I bolded. Expansions are one thing. If they release a fleshed out PvE mode and want people to pay then great. People will pay for that, I probably will. What is counter to their model is locking out people from new characters if they don't buy the "new" game. That's bullshit. If they want to make it a new game then that's fine. The crossplay nonsense doesn't work.
It seems like what you're suggesting is that Overwatch's business model is "pay us $20 now and we guarantee you many years of free PvP content" and I don't know why you think that. Blizzard has never before released a game like that - they always charge for new multiplayer content eventually, without exception. Literally all their previous games either have expansions that lock out legacy players, or charge for access to new characters/cards.
Who knows, maybe Overwatch will be the one exception, but I really don't think so. The only way I see that happening is if they start adding more types of monetization and transition the game to F2P, and if they were going to do that I think they would have done it by now. Instead they've very much been maintaining the status quo the past couple years with a pretty modest development pace, and I'm quite certain that the revenue the game pulls in has been dropping over time. That only makes sense to me if they intend to do a paid sequel/expansion, and I don't mean just a PvE spinoff.
Jason Schraier is the biggest name in games journalism right now, if he's reporting it I believe it. I don't think OW cosmetics are pulling in the big bucks these days. They haven't invested much energy into the events in years.
I think they could call it Overwatch 2 but it behaves more like an expansion, where most of what it adds is outside the core game modes (namely PvE), and anything they do change in the core game mode goes to OW1 as well with crossplay support. Maybe new characters could be OW2 only or some other way to sweeten the pot to get people to switch.
This would run entirely counter to their business model of giving you the stuff that affects the game for free and only along you to pay for pure cosmetics if you want.
There is no reason for this to be called Overwatch 2 for real. He or Blizzard are probably just using it as a placeholder name.
That's their business model for this game, nobody said this game would continue to grow forever. I'm honestly not sure why people are expecting that. No other game of theirs has ever done that - actually all of their other games have made people pay for new multiplayer content when it's expansion time.
I'm specifically talking about the part that I bolded. Expansions are one thing. If they release a fleshed out PvE mode and want people to pay then great. People will pay for that, I probably will. What is counter to their model is locking out people from new characters if they don't buy the "new" game. That's bullshit. If they want to make it a new game then that's fine. The crossplay nonsense doesn't work.
It seems like what you're suggesting is that Overwatch's business model is "pay us $20 now and we guarantee you many years of free PvP content" and I don't know why you think that. Blizzard has never before released a game like that - they always charge for new multiplayer content eventually, without exception. Literally all their previous games either have expansions that lock out legacy players, or charge for access to new characters/cards.
Who knows, maybe Overwatch will be the one exception, but I really don't think so. The only way I see that happening is if they start adding more types of monetization and transition the game to F2P, and if they were going to do that I think they would have done it by now. Instead they've very much been maintaining the status quo the past couple years with a pretty modest development pace, and I'm quite certain that the revenue the game pulls in has been dropping over time. That only makes sense to me if they intend to do a paid sequel/expansion, and I don't mean just a PvE spinoff.
I think that's their business model because that's literally what they stated their business model was for this game from the very beginning. Right from the start they said that you wouldn't pay anything beyond the initial cost to get new maps, characters, game modes. Have they done that with any other games that you're talking about?
From what I remember when StarCraft 2 launched, they came out and said that they would release expansions at later dates. That's not what they said for Overwatch and it's not what they've done.
Posts
Hand check.
Don't talk about the Scrimgod like that. He's just saving up those scrimbucks so he can pop off in 3 weeks.
I have a hard time seeing them already going to Overwatch 2, there's no reason to when OWL is still going strong, but a sorta side-game with a focus on more PvE would be cool
Blizzard only does sequels once every 10 years, there won't be an official Overwatch 2 anytime soon.
These are my Overwatch-related "anytime soon" predictions.
-PvE looter shooter with customizable class/role archetypes
-PvP pretty much O1 but with a Blizzard take on Destiny’s gambit mode
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Knowing they cancelled a SC FPS is a bit of a blow to the gut, though.
I don't think Overwatch particularly needs a sequel right now. Obviously, they have numbers and dollars and whatnot, but my impression is that it's going strong.
I think they could call it Overwatch 2 but it behaves more like an expansion, where most of what it adds is outside the core game modes (namely PvE), and anything they do change in the core game mode goes to OW1 as well with crossplay support. Maybe new characters could be OW2 only or some other way to sweeten the pot to get people to switch.
This would run entirely counter to their business model of giving you the stuff that affects the game for free and only along you to pay for pure cosmetics if you want.
There is no reason for this to be called Overwatch 2 for real. He or Blizzard are probably just using it as a placeholder name.
That's their business model for this game, nobody said this game would continue to grow forever. I'm honestly not sure why people are expecting that. No other game of theirs has ever done that - actually all of their other games have made people pay for new multiplayer content when it's expansion time.
It doesn't need a sequel right now, no. But will it in a year? Two years? Three? Blizzard takes a long time making games. Keep in mind they haven't even intended on announcing this game yet.
Engine/visual updates, major gameplay overhauls or additions, rejuvenated player base and consumer interest. These are very few of the many things that are easier to accomplish with a new game over a large update, and a big part of that (though I'd argue not the biggest part) is a wash of new funding from people buying a new game, both old and new customers. "Here's this new game with this new stuff" sounds a lot more enticing to many consumers than "here's a bunch of new stuff to this game you got bored of a while ago."
I'm specifically talking about the part that I bolded. Expansions are one thing. If they release a fleshed out PvE mode and want people to pay then great. People will pay for that, I probably will. What is counter to their model is locking out people from new characters if they don't buy the "new" game. That's bullshit. If they want to make it a new game then that's fine. The crossplay nonsense doesn't work.
I'd pay for a fresh start. There should definitely be some extras goodies, but I can't begrudge Blizzard for turning off the life support and moving on.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
I don't know if I follow this. Why couldn't OWL ultimately transition to also cover a sequel title?
It seems like what you're suggesting is that Overwatch's business model is "pay us $20 now and we guarantee you many years of free PvP content" and I don't know why you think that. Blizzard has never before released a game like that - they always charge for new multiplayer content eventually, without exception. Literally all their previous games either have expansions that lock out legacy players, or charge for access to new characters/cards.
Who knows, maybe Overwatch will be the one exception, but I really don't think so. The only way I see that happening is if they start adding more types of monetization and transition the game to F2P, and if they were going to do that I think they would have done it by now. Instead they've very much been maintaining the status quo the past couple years with a pretty modest development pace, and I'm quite certain that the revenue the game pulls in has been dropping over time. That only makes sense to me if they intend to do a paid sequel/expansion, and I don't mean just a PvE spinoff.
I think that's their business model because that's literally what they stated their business model was for this game from the very beginning. Right from the start they said that you wouldn't pay anything beyond the initial cost to get new maps, characters, game modes. Have they done that with any other games that you're talking about?
From what I remember when StarCraft 2 launched, they came out and said that they would release expansions at later dates. That's not what they said for Overwatch and it's not what they've done.
"Yet" doesn't matter. They said what their plan is and they've stuck to it. There's no reason to believe that anything has changed.
Lootbox legislation will change things, guaranteed. If their lose their monetization stream in the US, something will give.