Am I understanding Overwatch 2 right?

[GreenJesus]

Imaging paying for Overwatch 2 when all the characters are free to play on Pornhub.

[Ielenia]

Shouldn't be classified as OW2.
OW2 would mean a new game entirely, this should just be a PVE expansion to Overwatch.

Why?

If it was an expansion, it means if I wanted to play OW2, I would have to have OW1 first. If I'm already a player, that's not a problem, but if I'm a new player, then I have to basically buy 2 games to play 1.

But in this case, since OW2 is its own standalone game, as a new player, I only need to buy one game, and still be able to PvP with players from both games.

[fakaroonie]

Not Overwatch 2 to be honest, can't understand people defending it.

It's Overwatch: PVE Patch

It's a fuckup for a game that started so well and declined sooo much. All their resources must have gone into pumping out D4 quickly...

I mean seriously, doing a few missions like the ones they do for events, counts as a new game? Nah seriously.

[oplawlz]

Why?

If it was an expansion, it means if I wanted to play OW2, I would have to have OW1 first. If I'm already a player, that's not a problem, but if I'm a new player, then I have to basically buy 2 games to play 1.

But in this case, since OW2 is its own standalone game, as a new player, I only need to buy one game, and still be able to PvP with players from both games.

Or, especially since the game isn't coming out anytime soon, they could just include ow1 with ow2 for new players after the expansion is released - like they already do with wow expansions.

[CrawlFromThePit]

Content is everything in a game that a player consumes, from maps, to heroes, to cosmetics, to gear.


But you already do. I'd be happy if you stopped ignoring reality.

Either way, I'm done replying.

Hahaha, the classic "no u" cuz you have nothing to back up your claim. I explained why something is content while the other is not. You sit there and refuse to discuss the topic, repeating your perspective instead of understanding what things actually are.

- - - Updated - - -

Three words: you are wrong.

Elaborate on that. Explain why you subjectively believe I am wrong.

[Potatowizard]

It's 100% cross playable with OW1. You are essentially buying the PVE mode. I guess I am not getting this either. They have been doing limited time PVE modes since the game came out. This couldn't have just been a major patch? I have a feeling something they have not announced is going to be coming out with OW2. No idea what it could be. But the PVE content isn't the draw for OW. It's the PVP tournaments and competitive play.

I have to go conspiracy mode and dive into the possibility OW2 will have a new slew of purchasable(micro transactions) for cosmetics, skins, season passes, something. That they can make money off of. To many other games are killing it with purchasable content. I think they want to try to capitalize on with OW2

[Soulwind]

They should have called it Overwatch Archives. I don't mind paying independently for a PvE mode, as long as it provides a good amount of maps, and the promise that more will be released. But a few graphical improvements, 1 (one) new PvP mode and the same heroes and maps from the current game don't really "redefine what a sequel is", if anything, it's closer to what EA does with their sports games, than most sequels.

They had a hard time explaining what the hell they were announcing on stage and in the Q&As, which tells me their developers haven't talked all that much with the marketing team.

[Eapoe]

Hahaha, the classic "no u" cuz you have nothing to back up your claim. I explained why something is content while the other is not. You sit there and refuse to discuss the topic, repeating your perspective instead of understanding what things actually are.

- - - Updated - - -



Elaborate on that. Explain why you subjectively believe I am wrong.

What would you rather do, look up the definition on Google yourself or just have me copy paste it?
Here, I’ll just do it:

con·tent2
/ˈkäntent/
noun
noun: content; plural noun: contents
the things that are held or included in something.

Although I guess this is more of an objective elaboration as my personal feelings (Subjective) have no bearing on the literal meaning of the word itself.

[Raone]

You basically are paying 30/40/50/60 bucks to play the PvE mode, and access to new champions.

That's basically it, yes?

You can continue to play Overwatch "1" and play with people who are playing Overwatch "2" (which seems to be just a glorified patch) and the only thing you're missing out on is the PvE stuff, and a few new heroes...?

What most companies would do is abandon Overwatch 1 and just focus on Overwatch 2. Blizzard is taking steps to not abandon Overwatch 1 and making sure anyone who does buy the new game gets access to their old stuff, yet its money grabbing/glorified patch? Would you rather blizzard stop Overwatch 1 completely and make them not link? They are spending money to add things to the game that will lose them money to make people happy...

[CrawlFromThePit]

What would you rather do, look up the definition on Google yourself or just have me copy paste it?
Here, I’ll just do it:

con·tent2
/ˈkäntent/
noun
noun: content; plural noun: contents
the things that are held or included in something.

Although I guess this is more of an objective elaboration as my personal feelings (Subjective) have no bearing on the literal meaning of the word itself.

Have you ever heard anyone say "we're making new content for you to collect"? No, it's always "we're making new content for guys to do", because in the gaming world content implies gameplay, something to actually do in the game, to engage player in the world, not just to reward them, that makes no sense. It's just the word people use, no one cares about the official definition that applies to putting an object inside a container, wtf.

[valky94]

Overwatch 2 is the response to people wanting more PvE/story oriented content for this franchise, remember that initially Overwatch was meant as an esport first and foremost the game was not designed for PvE storytelling. This is why they are developing OW2 while maintaining OW1 relevant.

OW2 will still have the same multiplayer just with updated grafics (and its not a small upgrade) and wouldnt be surprised if they remove new cosmetic items from OW1

[Eapoe]

Have you ever heard anyone say "we're making new content for you to collect"? No, it's always "we're making new content for guys to do", because in the gaming world content implies gameplay, something to actually do in the game, to engage player in the world, not just to reward them, that makes no sense. It's just the word people use, no one cares about the official definition that applies to putting an object inside a container, wtf.

Spin it however you want, but you are literally arguing against a definition. Content is everything in a game, from the small little tree you pass by on a map, to the cosmetics you unlock, to the actual in game fighting.
Reinhardt put in game, that’s content. Any extra armor appearances that go with him are also content. Look at it this way: do you consider a new map content? Well guess what, that hovering car you see is part of that map. That car adds to the content of the map, therefore itself being part of the content. The same holds true for any and all characters and their subsequent modifications.
As stated, twist it however you want, you are flat out wrong and just doubling down on a losing battle and making yourself appear dumb.

[Ielenia]

Hahaha, the classic "no u" cuz you have nothing to back up your claim.

Other than the explanations I've given several times, already.

I explained why something is content while the other is not.

If my explanations mean "nothing that backs up my claim", then your explanation equally amounts to "nothing that backs up your claim."

You sit there and refuse to discuss the topic, repeating your perspective instead of understanding what things actually are.

... That is literally what you've been doing so far. You just keep repeating "rewards are not content because I say so".

"Content" is everything within a game that you, as a player, "consume". In this case it includes maps, heroes, the skins, the sprays, the voice lines, the game modes... everything.

"Rewards" are part of the game's content.

Would you really say that if Blizzard released a new patch for Overwatch, in which it did nothing but add literally 700.000 new sprays, 90.000 new skins, 500.000 new voice lines, 8.000 new victory poses, 25.000 emotes... you'd say that this would be a "zero content patch" since it's all just new rewards being added?

Actually, don't answer that. Of course you would.

[CrawlFromThePit]

Spin it however you want, but you are literally arguing against a definition. Content is everything in a game, from the small little tree you pass by on a map, to the cosmetics you unlock, to the actual in game fighting.
Reinhardt put in game, that’s content. Any extra armor appearances that go with him are also content. Look at it this way: do you consider a new map content? Well guess what, that hovering car you see is part of that map. That car adds to the content of the map, therefore itself being part of the content. The same holds true for any and all characters and their subsequent modifications.
As stated, twist it however you want, you are flat out wrong and just doubling down on a losing battle and making yourself appear dumb.

Yet a patch or an xpack that only added skins would be considered empty. Content is something you can do, no matter how inaccurate the official definition is.

- - - Updated - - -

Other than the explanations I've given several times, already.


If my explanations mean "nothing that backs up my claim", then your explanation equally amounts to "nothing that backs up your claim."


... That is literally what you've been doing so far. You just keep repeating "rewards are not content because I say so".

"Content" is everything within a game that you, as a player, "consume". In this case it includes maps, heroes, the skins, the sprays, the voice lines, the game modes... everything.

"Rewards" are part of the game's content.

Would you really say that if Blizzard released a new patch for Overwatch, in which it did nothing but add literally 700.000 new sprays, 90.000 new skins, 500.000 new voice lines, 8.000 new victory poses, 25.000 emotes... you'd say that this would be a "zero content patch" since it's all just new rewards being added?

Actually, don't answer that. Of course you would.

Of course I would, a patch in which there's nothing to do? That's officially a no content patch. What's the use of rewards if there's no content to play in order to get the rewards? That's completely stupid. Look, I understand the real definition of the word and all, but it's like if I showed you a empty bucket and tell you there's nothing in it, and you reply "no, you are wrong, there is air in it" OKAY FINE, THERE'S AIR, just like rewards, it's irrelevant content, that's not what's important. Gameplay related stuff is what people consider content.

[Ielenia]

Gameplay related stuff is what people consider content.

Just because some people (you included) wrongly qualify what "content" is, doesn't mean you're right. Rewards are still content, because they're part of the game that the player "consumes".

Good day.

[CrawlFromThePit]

Just because some people (you included) wrongly qualify what "content" is, doesn't mean you're right. Rewards are still content, because they're part of the game that the player "consumes".

Good day.

Go enjoy content you can't play, good day to you too, sir.

[Maxilian]

You can't seriously expect them doing a whole story campaign and not charging for it. You get what was promised when you buy OW1, which is a team shooter.

To be fair, if that's the only thing they are charging me for, i'm totally ok, i may even buy it. (I do like L4D and Vermintide, so i guess this would also be something that i may like)

[Mojo03]

It’s essentially a PVE expansion adding PVE modes and RPG elements. I think the reason it’s being pitched as “2.0” and not a DLC is that they are giving it a new engine.

Curious to see the pricing on it. Can’t imagine more than $40 like OW.

[aMpOW]

You basically are paying 30/40/50/60 bucks to play the PvE mode, and access to new champions.

That's basically it, yes?

You can continue to play Overwatch "1" and play with people who are playing Overwatch "2" (which seems to be just a glorified patch) and the only thing you're missing out on is the PvE stuff, and a few new heroes...?

OW2 Isn't a full new game, but see it as Fortnite Chapter 2. It's just a really big new patch where you can also buy a expansion that gives you the PVE. Because if you have OW1 you get a patch with the engine upgrade, heroes maps etc.

[Zuben]

I'd be peeved if they separated the two games from each other just to have OW2 appear meatier.