Upon Sombra's release she was the polar opposite, arriving with a relatively weak kit and alongside a variety of other heroes is resigned to spend her days outside of the competitive environment. Recent tournaments saw her drafted less than 2% of the time, while Ana was sat at draft rate greater than 85%. Unsurprisingly the staple of Lucio, Reinhardt, Winston, Roadhog, D.Va, Zarya and Tracer still make up the majority of placements: little has changed since launch in that regard.
Why, then, are the heroes and the balance of Overwatch handled with kid gloves and what is preventing Blizzard delivering heroes to time frames all their competitors – and their own studios – seem to be capable of? I think the answer is two fold and partially linked to its fanbase and its financial model.
The limited roster of Overwatch combined with the exceptional marketing Blizzard has undertaken of its heroes has personalised them more than any other multiplayer title I've ever played. Where a hero in a MOBA is typically a set of abilities and little else, Overwatch has personality: it is its heroes. Many players across PC and console will have few cares for the wider balance of the game and play X, Y or Z hero simply for that personality, play style or both. Any tinkering around the edges that Blizzard undertakes will leave them largely indifferent unless the impact is extensive. At the same time, there will be those – like me – who are fiercely protective of their favorites and keep a close eye on how they're adjusted.
This leaves Blizzard in a difficult position as the game is both commercially casual (for want of a better term) and competitive, and while it has yet to reach the lofty heights of League of Legends or DOTA2, there is a varied player base here that Blizzard will want to appease. Balancing purely towards the highest level play, which most MOBAs aim for, is likely to ruffle many a feather. I know how annoyed I was when Zenyatta saw some adjustments to his kit early on in his life and for a time, they lost my activity.
My second thought on the matter is the financial model Blizzard has chosen for Overwatch. As a Buy to Play title with microtransactions linked solely to loot boxes, they're squarely at odds (see what I did there?) with the MOBA genre. Where a Free to Play title offering purchasable skins and monthly heroes proves eye-wateringly lucrative (League of Legends earned $1.6 billion in revenue for 2015). Overwatch isn't necessarily capable of recreating this. I must stress there's no doubt Blizzard has earned a frightening amount of revenue since the launch of Overwatch, having amassed 25 million players across all platforms. However, such growth is unsustainable in the long term to the point where reliance on loot boxes alone risks an eventual loss of player retention. The seasonal supply of skins cannot possibly meet the inevitable player demand (or consumption).
This is where, I believe, the protracted release schedule of heroes comes in. Should Blizzard release a new Hero every month I'm not entirely convinced this would yield tangible results; those already playing would simply lap up the content, grateful of the ”free stuff". To release a new hero sporadically though, many months apart, likely results in a clambering from new and old players, especially if it coincides with a viral marketing campaign. The Sombra ARG, which was at times exhausting and equally frustrating, had the internet abuzz for months. It's a level of anticipation and press coverage a predictable release schedule simply cannot buy.
That, as far as Blizzard are concerned, is worthwhile. For the rest of us however, the anticipation surrounding a new hero release is an agonising wait and one that at times, sees the game and its balance stagnate. I'd settle for a new Hero every two months as the middle ground, wouldn't you?
