So why is OW2 being pitched as a sequel?

[apustus]

Because it takes place after the first? You know, like a sequel does.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Weren't the WoW expansions each $60, though? Can't remember, but I don't think Blizz ever sold them for less than $60 at launch.

But yea, they're gonna brand it as a sequel cause that's a better way to drive sales and interest - why buy an Overwatch "expansion", when a new game would probably be better?

I won't sit here and pretend to know what they all cost over the decade and a half they have been rolling but you can get Shadowlands right now for 39.99 base (as in not a collector/store items in the unit already). That feels consistent for base model since things went digital although I will not pretend to say that as an absolute. Back when you had to buy it in the store no idea.. but I am sure it was higher just because of store markups, packaging and shipping considerations for every unit, and all of that jazz.

I would imagine a OW expansion would fall right into that zone of the price of 39.99. With no way to know absolutely certainly that this is the case, but I would imagine OW2 is going to be a full 59.99 or 69.99 base purchase.

[Bigthumbb]

I would imagine a OW expansion would fall right into that zone of the price of 39.99. With no way to know absolutely certainly that this is the case, but I would imagine OW2 is going to be a full 59.99 or 69.99 base purchase.

There's still so much we don't know about the price model. You'd think people who already own Overwatch would be able to pay a discounted price for the PvE content they're missing (since that's the only new stuff that the pre-existing game won't automatically include), which would mean there are two different packages you can pay for. I don't think they'll sell "PvE Only" OW2 at a lower price to the general public, though - only those who already own Overwatch. So ultimately I could see the OW2 base game in the $50-60 range, while if you already own OW1, you can upgrade for like $30ish? Maybe?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

There's still so much we don't know about the price model. You'd think people who already own Overwatch would be able to pay a discounted price for the PvE content they're missing (since that's the only new stuff that the pre-existing game won't automatically include), which would mean there are two different packages you can pay for. I don't think they'll sell "PvE Only" OW2 at a lower price to the general public, though - only those who already own Overwatch. So ultimately I could see the OW2 base game in the $50-60 range, while if you already own OW1, you can upgrade for like $30ish? Maybe?

See the upgrade to two model makes the most sense as a consumer. To be honest it is something Blizzard probably would have done back in the day. I just don't have the faith they will pass up 20 extra bucks and not to mention it pretty much turns 2 into an expansion to everyone but a brand new player which they obviously have made the choice to avoid.

[Mojo03]

I love how Blizzard is going out of the way to make it so Overwatch 2 has backwards compability, that people don't lose stuff going from 1-2 and people still can play the first one without buying the 2nd one, yet people complain.

Most gaming companies wouldn't do this, they would just release a new game and abandon Overwatch 1 completely. Blizzard isn't yet that is a bad thing? Wut???

They kind of can't. They'd get a ton of backlash and even more important, they have a ton invested in OW league and so do a lot of investors. They aren't just doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. The game would literally be a mess.

[Rendark]

Because a "new" game brings in more hype then a big patch.

[Kharadin]

Because a "new" game brings in more hype then a big patch.

Big patches also don't make money.

[Beefhammer]

even the game mode will be in overwatch 1, basically EVERYTHIGN is the same, all future heroes and maps will still come to both ow1 and 2, the onyl difference are pve missions. if u ask me it was a mistake calling it overwatch 2, it causes a lot of confusion and dissapointment. the only saving grace id say is that i assume that future missions and pve shit will come free to ow2 like how maps and heroes are free to ow1

I do believe it was Blizzard's marketing that wanted the 2. Jeff and the team have been saying it's more of an addon/expansion to the first. Hence the whole re-thinking what a sequel is Blizzcon stuff. Blizzard knows it's not a proper sequel, but it will probably sell better if non players think it's a different game that allows BC with the first game.

- - - Updated - - -

I love how Blizzard is going out of the way to make it so Overwatch 2 has backwards compability, that people don't lose stuff going from 1-2 and people still can play the first one without buying the 2nd one, yet people complain.

Most gaming companies wouldn't do this, they would just release a new game and abandon Overwatch 1 completely. Blizzard isn't yet that is a bad thing? Wut???

Got to remember , when summer reports about thus game came out they were saying it would have this, because while they are calling it a sequel, it's more of an addition to the original.

- - - Updated - - -

See the upgrade to two model makes the most sense as a consumer. To be honest it is something Blizzard probably would have done back in the day. I just don't have the faith they will pass up 20 extra bucks and not to mention it pretty much turns 2 into an expansion to everyone but a brand new player which they obviously have made the choice to avoid.

Sounds like the Wii/WiiU confusion back in the day. Many parents and non traditional gamers though it was an accessory to the Wii and not needed. Boy were they surprised when WiiU games didn't run on a Wii.

- - - Updated - - -

Weren't the WoW expansions each $60, though? Can't remember, but I don't think Blizz ever sold them for less than $60 at launch.

But yea, they're gonna brand it as a sequel cause that's a better way to drive sales and interest - why buy an Overwatch "expansion", when a new game would probably be better?

They were $40, but WoD added a character boost and upped the price to $50. Been there ever since considering they are giving away a $60 item with the expansion.

- - - Updated - - -

I won't sit here and pretend to know what they all cost over the decade and a half they have been rolling but you can get Shadowlands right now for 39.99 base (as in not a collector/store items in the unit already). That feels consistent for base model since things went digital although I will not pretend to say that as an absolute. Back when you had to buy it in the store no idea.. but I am sure it was higher just because of store markups, packaging and shipping considerations for every unit, and all of that jazz.

I would imagine a OW expansion would fall right into that zone of the price of 39.99. With no way to know absolutely certainly that this is the case, but I would imagine OW2 is going to be a full 59.99 or 69.99 base purchase.

I might have gotten a deal ut I swear I only paid $50 for OW.

[probert]

as i understand it:

- If you're 100% new to the game, buy Overwatch 2 and you get everything (target audience)
- If you're a whale who must have everything, or a completionist, then you *need* to buy Overwatch 2 for the PvE content (lucrative market)
- If you have Overwatch and you're indifferent, Blizzard wants to keep you in the ecosystem for their 'engagement numbers' or 'total install base'; making it backwards compatible ensures they maintain several million players.

Many, many games have moved on to a sequel and killed their install base. Overwatch 2 is their attempt to split the difference and keep the current install base + drive more revenue from the franchise.

[Raone]

Got to remember , when summer reports about thus game came out they were saying it would have this, because while they are calling it a sequel, it's more of an addition to the original.

But it only seems that way because they are adding backwards compatibility.

Look at fighting games, every new game is updated graphics using the same engine with some different twists, however, the roster is smaller with usual characters mysteriously missing that they later add back as DLC. Same amount of maps with many disappearing, and you have to unlock every all over again.

Look at many FPS like CoD, just a bunch of new maps but you lose literally everything from the previous game and have to start over, yet the gameplay, the graphics, the engine, are all the same

Overwatch 2 is updating the graphics, keeping all the same heroes from OW1 WHILE ADDING MORE, keeping all the same maps as OW1 WHILE ADDING MORE, upgrading the engine, upgrading the graphics while allowing all the new heroes/maps to be played in OW1. Also everything you unlocked in OW1 is carried over to OW2.

This is a massive step in the right direction for sequels yet people are bitching ...

[Zentail]

I mean, I think what they're doing is awesome. It's all the same, sure. But so are all the Call of Duty's. If each CoD game simply unlocked a plethora of more content (or expansion, rather), then that would be awesome. I could have a single game with all the stuff in it instead of 100 different CoD games that are all basically the same anyway.

[Zuben]

They could've called it an expansion pack of some nature, but they instead opted to ride it big. OW2 rings grander than OW: X of (the) Y (or a single word). And yes, they get to charge more. Think the name also emphasizes that they're finally getting the story forward, like a new chapter in the game. In any case, I'm glad they're keeping the games stitched together.