Oh, you mean the entire "reason they HAD to make overwatch 2"?
And yes, I know that it was actually to get people to rebuy skins that they already had and heroes that they already had
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
76 points (97.5% liked)
PC Gaming
8573 readers
299 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
OW2 absolutely deserves criticism but that is factually incorrect - if you had OW1, all your stuff carried over. You didn't have to pay for anything you had previously
What is factually correct is that they promised no map or hero would ever be paid content when ow1 launched. Ow2 allowed them to eat their words and put new heroes behind a paywall.
If we're going for complete accuracy, that's not totally true either. You can unlock every hero through (free) challenges or pay to unlock them immediately.
Before I get called an OW2 fanboy: I loved OW1 and liked OW2 enough to play it for a few weeks but quit when they announced the PvE changes.
You can unlock every hero through (free) challenges or pay to unlock them immediately.
Which is a problem in competitive gaming. Mauga proved that when people were leaving comp games to buy the battle pass so they weren't getting obliterated for not having him unlocked yet. So sure it's not totally accurate to say new heroes are locked behind a paywall but the spirt is the same since it's still pay to win for a few weeks.
I agree (I am against any monetization model that affects gameplay) but felt like the distinction is significant enough to warrant clarification
I see your point, but to me there being an alternate way around the paywall (grinding) doesnt make it not a paywall
And to their credit, they just announced that all new heroes will be free and unlocked for everyone.
But yeah I stopped playing months ago. The Bebop collab intrigued me, but they really dropped the ball with Spike and Ein.
You can unlock every hero through (free) challenges or pay to unlock them immediately.
If I ever have to play without access to competitive gameplay elements that are paywalled, it's Pay to Win.
It's still an important distinction to make.
Smite 2 is to make you rebuy things
OW2 was to make things harder to obtain without spending money
They had already cancelled the campaign a long time ago, it really pissed off the HOTS community because the dev team was taken from that game to work on that
Smite 2 is rebuilding their game from the ground up, from unreal engine 3 to 5
That's not really comparable to blizzard slapping the number 2 on their game
Will Smite 1 still be around afterwards?
Cant remember but I wanna say yes
Fta
Work on the campaign missions was apparently held up in pursuit of a nebulous thing called “Blizzard Quality,” a term used to describe a standard the company aspires to.
They haven't had that in years. Wtf.
Blizzard quality... Also known as generating the most money for the CEO and shareholders in recent years.
They have not cared for their customers or employees in a long time.
Overwatch 2 successfully made me stop caring about live service games. What is blizzard doing with all that money if it’s not going into the “blizzard polish”?
Yachts. Made of gold. They keep sinking so they just build another one.
Keeping Bobby Kotick rich as fuck
TIL people still play overwatch 2.
According to some sites, millions of people play it every month.
The only reliable statistics we have access to is Steam statistics, and the numbers aren't looking great for Overwatch 2.
I would agree it's more reliable but I also would think the majority of players are still using battle.net.