-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is Overwatch going to be popular on consoles?
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
Overwatch is much, much faster than CoD. Not sure where you got that idea.
AzureSkies
Member
playing the beta right now and I kinda feel that it's faster than COD, to be honest.
The game has enough going for it, and it was obviously designed to accommodate controllers that I don't think it will have a problem getting an audience.
What I suspect is Blizzard will likely have some matchmaking issues to sort out on release, especially given they'll likely get the CoD crowd on consoles, which is focused around deathmatch and lone-wolf play...and that will get you utterly destroyed in Overwatch.
I suspect if you're even a decently competent team player on console, you'll get to enjoy that first week of destroying people that are learning basics of how to play. Kinda like Titanfall's first few weeks where everyone played it like horizontal stop and pop Call of Duty, instead of wallrunning and consistent movement in very vertical levels.
What I suspect is Blizzard will likely have some matchmaking issues to sort out on release, especially given they'll likely get the CoD crowd on consoles, which is focused around deathmatch and lone-wolf play...and that will get you utterly destroyed in Overwatch.
I suspect if you're even a decently competent team player on console, you'll get to enjoy that first week of destroying people that are learning basics of how to play. Kinda like Titanfall's first few weeks where everyone played it like horizontal stop and pop Call of Duty, instead of wallrunning and consistent movement in very vertical levels.
MikeE21286
Member
I feel it won't be. But who knows. Diablo did great on consoles and has had great legs.
Yeah, I think cross play would at the very least, keep a healthy community. Don't think it'll happen though.
witchedwiz
Member
meh i WILL play it but..
40 eur (min) and pay for skins?
it should have been FREE + pay for skins OR payed and free skins..
this is blizz trying to get BOTH from f2p and l2p (license to play) world
40 eur (min) and pay for skins?
it should have been FREE + pay for skins OR payed and free skins..
this is blizz trying to get BOTH from f2p and l2p (license to play) world
The loot boxes with cosmetics are very easy to get for free.meh i WILL play it but..
40 eur (min) and pay for skins?
it should have been FREE + pay for skins OR payed and free skins..
this is blizz trying to get BOTH from f2p and l2p (license to play) world
meh i WILL play it but..
40 eur (min) and pay for skins?
it should have been FREE + pay for skins OR payed and free skins..
this is blizz trying to get BOTH from f2p and l2p (license to play) world
I had read that additional characters/maps/modes (non-cosmetics) would be made available at no additional charge though. Is that accurate? Because if so then I feel like charging for both the game and skins is fine.
Abilidebob
Member
meh i WILL play it but..
40 eur (min) and pay for skins?
it should have been FREE + pay for skins OR payed and free skins..
this is blizz trying to get BOTH from f2p and l2p (license to play) world
Eh, at least all the heroes are free. If they went F2P you can be sure it'd be like HotS, locking gameplay-affecting content behind a paywall/grindwall.
Correct.
Cool. While I'm against the current "season pass" norm, if a game is good and has quality support beyond the initial launch then I think a dev deserves to be paid in excess of the initial purchase. I can think of no better way than by offering optional superficial add-ons.
Dance Inferno
Unconfirmed Member
meh i WILL play it but..
40 eur (min) and pay for skins?
it should have been FREE + pay for skins OR payed and free skins..
this is blizz trying to get BOTH from f2p and l2p (license to play) world
You don't pay for skins. You unlock a loot box every time you level up, which can contain skins or other random cosmetic items. You can buy loot boxes, but not specific skins.
anothertech
Member
Update TF2 made by blizzard with console/PC cross play?
I don't see how this can fail tbh.
I don't see how this can fail tbh.
Fbh
Member
I think it will do fine.
Blizzard has the sort of name and reputation that will atract players.
And with the Blizzard score bonus of reviews (I mean come on Vanilla Diablo 3 was shit and still has a metascore of 88) combined with the fact that it actually seems to be good it will probably reach a 90+ average score.
Online only might hurt it and it's a shame that consoles are only getting the "we really want to charge $60 for this" edition as I think a lower entry price could have helped.
But I think it will do pretty well on consoles...just not COD or Battlefield tier
Blizzard has the sort of name and reputation that will atract players.
And with the Blizzard score bonus of reviews (I mean come on Vanilla Diablo 3 was shit and still has a metascore of 88) combined with the fact that it actually seems to be good it will probably reach a 90+ average score.
Online only might hurt it and it's a shame that consoles are only getting the "we really want to charge $60 for this" edition as I think a lower entry price could have helped.
But I think it will do pretty well on consoles...just not COD or Battlefield tier
To be fair, D3 didn't really expose its problems until you got to Inferno and started grinding out gear and seeing what was wrong with it. Reviewers probably beat it on normal, got to level 28-30, and wrote their shit up. At that point the game was still pretty amazing.
Overwatch will review well because it's a fantastic game, not because it's a Blizzard game (Though I can see how those two things can be mistaken for each other sometimes).
How about you learn some manners first?
I speak from experience, when Activision tried to make a faster paced and more vertical Call of Duty with Advanced Warfare, all of the console players were outraged like it was the end of the world (it was the only good game of the series as far as I'm concerned).
I predict Overwatch will do okay for a year or two on consoles, but the PC version will outlive it for many more.
Even though you're not being very polite about it, you're definitely right. Overwatch is far too fast paced and precise to ever be successful or competitive on consoles. The meta will be completely different on consoles than on PC, and that's not a good thing.
grandwizard
Member
Agreed entirely. Lots of people don't realize the subtle design decisions that are made in shooters to make them more gamepad friendly from the beginning. Horizontal level design and movement, on-hand magnetized melee, aim down sights, etc. From the first Overwatch gameplay videos they showed (played on a kb/m) I could tell they designed that game from the beginning as PC shooter. The speed and accuracy displayed and the pace was matched up to what I expected of something designed for a mouse and not a gamepad. I don't expect this game to do very well to the console shooter audience where shooters feel completely different, and I expect them to have to retool some things to make it play well on a gamepad including agressive aim assist.
Conscience Falls
Member
Out of the 10 people I usually play games like Destiny, The Divison, Halo 5, etc. with? 7 of them are picking up Overwatch. Out of those 7, I know at least three of us have convinced multiple friends outside of the group to pick up the game.
The general consensus from those we drag into being interested is that the combat looks fun and varied (enough) from character to character and the world looks really interesting (thanks animated shorts).
I'm not sure how the game will do on consoles in regards to longevity, but I plan to stick with it on Xbox One and PC. It helps that they're all launching at the same time, makes the consoles feel like less of an afterthought.
The general consensus from those we drag into being interested is that the combat looks fun and varied (enough) from character to character and the world looks really interesting (thanks animated shorts).
I'm not sure how the game will do on consoles in regards to longevity, but I plan to stick with it on Xbox One and PC. It helps that they're all launching at the same time, makes the consoles feel like less of an afterthought.
GankzyMcfly
Member
I've played all three and they do have their difference, but their all similar as well. Ultimately i couldn't see myself playing all 3 of them at one time and although i agree that it is an extremely different game overall with similarities, Gigantic is currently my favorite of the three.
Agreed, Overwatch is way more polished tight and just fun in general. Still doesnt warrant the 60 dollar price tag IMO but i can understand the appeal for certain people.
This seems a bit hyperbolic. In almost every f2p moba ive ever played acquiring heroes has never been a task that has required "hundreds of hours". In Gigantic for example, ive already unlocked the majority of heros playing casual. This has only been the case for me in Smite but to be fair i didn't play much. However, when you consider the fact that you can get existing and future content (excluding skins) through founders packs for most moba's for anywhere between 20-40 dollars, the 60 dollars price tag for overwatch appears to hefty for me but thats just my opinion.
Overwatch has literally no moba qualities other than abilities and ultimates. It is a team based objective shooter. Gigantic is a pure moba.
GankzyMcfly
Member
So what your saying is Overwatch literally has no moba like qualities...other than its moba like qualities... gotcha.
Conscience Falls
Member
To be fair, abilities and 'ultimates', or 'supers' are not solely tied to MOBAs.
Destiny being an example, which is clearly not a MOBA.
HotS
stan423321
Member
Under this logic, Shenmue is not entirely unlike God of War, since they both have QTEs.
katsubento
Member
I think it will do well actually.
It's no more like a Moba than Starcraft 2 is a Moba (ZOMG YOU RIGHT CLICK AROUND THE MAP AND USE HOTKEYS TO ACTIVATE ABILITIES).
If you're comparing it to Gigantic, I question whether you've ACTUALLY played both games (I certainly have) in the first place. Gigantic is third person moba. It has third person shooter like controls, but it is not a shooter in the least. Overwatch is a first person shooter. It has some very base level moba ability comparisons, but it is not remotely a moba. There is a venn diagram these two products occupy which begins and ends with "You control the game like every other first or third person action game for the last 15 years, and you have abilities"
Xbox.com says I've owned Gigantic since 9/8/2015, of which I can't see my playtime from the pc version, not a ton but I'd say around 5-6 hours. It was 100% a moba, little different (kind of like how HotS is different, or Smite is different), but clearly a moba. I've gotten 1480500 experience in Overwatch since they added XP this year, which at ~3,000 a game puts me at 493 games this year. Can probably add 200 or so from before the Christmas break. Between all my hours playing mobas, and all my hours playing Overwatch (Let's go ahead and say 6 minute average Overwatch game and say I've putn in about 70 hours in the beta) I feel extremely qualified in saying that Overwatch is not a moba, and anyone that thinks it should have the pricing structure of one has no fucking clue what they're talking about. There's already a datamined weekly brawl mode called Mobawatch or something that, while not exactly a moba, is going to limit your heroes to who you pick at the start of the match and not let you switch (which is a good simulation of what 'free with buyable heroes' would feel like), and I'll let you know how it goes once they've tested it in the next day or two, but I can already foresee how hilariously fucking awful it's going to be. Not having the ability to play who you want at any given time is crippling in this game.
SmartWaffles
Member
For god's sake, MOBAs have their own distinctive features, aka symmetrical maps with lanes, minions as core map control mechanic, also have leveling up and gameplay/power related character customization as RPG elements, all of those are completely absent in Overwatch. Shooters with abilities exist before Overwatch was even a thing, are you going to call Destiny multiplayer or Halo Reach "MOBAs" because they have abilities/ultimates?
Shit, I just realized, The Division has Q E and Ultimate abilities as well. Moba confirmed!
man...Diablo has abilities tied to hotkeys, it has creeps. Shit, is it too a Moba?!
Is this real life? Every game has actually been a Moba all along?
What happens when everything is actually both Souls-like AND Moba-like?
I don't know what you know about MMO's, I'm an expert, but I can confirm that I control World of Warcraft with WSAD and my mouse, and I do in fact have abilities.
Overwatch is an MMO confirmed.
man...Diablo has abilities tied to hotkeys, it has creeps. Shit, is it too a Moba?!
Is this real life? Every game has actually been a Moba all along?
What happens when everything is actually both Souls-like AND Moba-like?
I don't know what you know about MMO's, I'm an expert, but I can confirm that I control World of Warcraft with WSAD and my mouse, and I do in fact have abilities.
Overwatch is an MMO confirmed.
I'm assuming Blizzard don't do anything stupid and not have dedicated player run servers on PC, which will mean the TF2 community servers I play on will have some Overwatch servers too which will be great to get some team play going. Will also ensure it'll have a community for years.
Not sure if serious. No, it doesn't have player run servers. It has custom matches and extensive friendlist/bnet integration. Despite the star wars thread, the rules of PC gaming only apply to non-valve/blizzard/good games.
SmartWaffles
Member
Also keep in mind, Blizzard kept Starcraft's online servers up for 18 years already and is still going, Diablo 2 just got a patch and a new season roll. Pretty sure Overwatch servers will outlive everything else on the market that is not Blizzard games.
well that sucks, being part of a big community where you can just jump on a server and know most of the people without having to queue up and invite them to groups etc should always be an option. Don't even think I'll pick it up without that, honestly never thought they'd not allow players to run their own servers.
Acquiescence
Member
Seems like it's one of the very very very very very few MOBAs that has a chance of finding an audience on consoles.
Unhandled Exception
Member
It'd have to be a MOBA first to accomplish that.
I just can't see this game having legs longer than a couple months. It's the HoTS of shooters to me. Too little, too late. I think they did their best picking up the shattered pieces of Titan and putting them into something accessible, but I just can't see the legs.
Sure it's a blizzard title and it has a built in audience but how do you compete with the likes of a CS:GO or even TF2 which is free? It's basically exactly like HoTS, it can't compete with LoL or Dota2, so it sputters on with a small but dedicated fanbase.
What is there to keep people playing? Skins? in a shooter? New maps ever few months? I just can't see it. Maybe I'm just being too harsh but the shooter crowd is pretty difficult to please.
Don't get me wrong it looks amazing, the style is fantastic and very diverse. But I just don't feel like that's enough to get people to keep coming back. It feels like it's going to be another blizzard game where people rage on the forums about X character being better than Y character and nerfing/buffing cycles.
GankzyMcfly
Member
You clearly didn't read my original post or you just have selective reading... "Ultimately i couldn't see myself playing all 3 of them at one time and although i agree that it is an extremely different game overall with similarities, Gigantic is currently my favorite of the three".Just because i prefer one over the other and believe they have similarities doesn't mean i consider them the same game, You have a considerably one dimensional interpretation of what a MOBA can be. Additionally you claim that Gigantic has no shooter qualities but this is simply not the case for classes like Imani, Becket and HK-206. Ultimately you have done nothing to change my opinion, just because Overwatch has more first person quick twitch qualities it doesnt take away from its moba like qualities. I never claimed that Overwatch is 100% pure Moba comparable to LoL or Dota2...i wouldnt even suggest that about Gigantic... i do however believe they all have moba like qualities and that the definition of a moba is not a one dimensional as you are making it out to be.. lets not forget what MOBA stands for...Multiplayer-online-battle-arena, in my opinion overwatch fits this description.
No, you're misunderstanding: Overwatch has NO Moba qualities. What you're saying makes it moba like are things that have existed in every genre of game for basically as long as games have had more than 1 button. You claim you wouldn't buy it because it's not F2P with earnable/buyable characters, and go on to compare it to mobas that use that model. The fact that it's nothing like a moba is PRETTY relevant when that's the comparison you're making.
The fact that you're trying to rules lawyer the individual words that make up MOBA is telling. Nobody gives a shit what the words mean, Moba is a genre and the game isn't one. Shit, Overwatch has Strategy, and it's real time, is it an RTS?
Nobody cares if you don't buy the game, but when you come in and act like it's similar to these other games and say you want it to be F2P for that reason, you're just provably wrong. If all you said was "Nah I like these other games better" nobody would respond.
GankzyMcfly
Member
Again selective reading I guess, never claimed it should be f2p, just suggested a 60 dollar price tag was too much considering I A) Prefer the gameplay in Gigantic and B) Don't have the time to play more then a few games consistently. I expect myself to be playing a game pretty heavy if im paying 60 dollars for it and since Gigantic is free and i prefer it, my time is already invested. If Overwatch wasn't 60 dollars and the price of admission was not so hefty, i would consider purchasing it on consoles to just jump in from time to time but ultimately i don't find that experience being worth 60 dollars....i can wait for a sale or something... Additionally you act like im the only person on this planet making this comparison...
http://fpsmoba.com/
http://www.technologypep.com/overwatch-review-a-cross-between-a-moba-and-an-fps.html
http://www.gamesradar.com/overwatch-review/
http://mmos.com/review/overwatch
You directly compared the pricing structure to mobas as an example of why you didn't like the pricing structure. That pricing structure would not work, it is not a moba. Just saying I'm selectively reading what you're saying doesn't make it true. If you don't want me to quote the shit you're saying and say you're wrong, then don't say wrong shit in the first place. Just say "Oh, I didn't realize it wasn't a moba. I'm still not interested"
KiefbladeMaster
Member
I'm thinking Overwatch is just going to be very popular in general.
GankzyMcfly
Member
More selective reading.... i was directly responding to a posters criticism of the f2p model for mobas, i didn't make the original comparison or suggest that its anything other than too pricey for me, i just provided my opinion.