Overwatch 2 - Official Thread

It’s happening and it’s apparently going to have a big PvE element to it too.
 
Still waiting on the first game to come to macOS (which it won't). I probably won't bother with the second if it also doesn't bother.
 
Blade-Runner said:
https://www.pcgamer.com/au/rumor-blizzard-is-working-on-overwatch-2/

But but but I have so many more loot boxes to earn!?!
Click to expand...

Hard to tell though how long they will be working on it, could be 5 years. Blizzard takes their sweet time in between titles. For instance this rumor came about because a guy working on a starcraft FPS stopped working on it and seemed to be unhappy about them canning the project after 2 years. So they spent 2 years working on a game which they just stopped making. This would imply that after 2 years it wasnt anywhere near close to release.



UnknownSouljer said:
Still waiting on the first game to come to macOS (which it won't). I probably won't bother with the second if it also doesn't bother.
Click to expand...


There was a time 5 to 10 years ago when apple was exploding and people predicted that they would become a major player in the desktop space. At around the same time MS was making enemies with steam. Then on top of that there was this linux push at steam. But in the end MS still controls 90% of the market and companies are going back to not caring about linux or macs again and if anything PC gaming has made explosive growth and people view gaming as a windows thing more than ever.
 
Perhaps. But Blizzard has supported macOS more than any other developer. Literally every other Blizzard game is available on macOS except Overwatch. Which I think is more an issue that Apple had a phase between OpenGL and metal. And in that time they didn’t have a modern API to program onto.

Overwatch fell squarely in that time and they never bothered to correct it. Even with Metal 2 being a very easy to program for and port to and it’s modern.
 
I don't think it is fair to call it Overwatch 2. It will either be an alternative game set in same universe, or even a "coop DLC" for Overwatch. Just as you wouldn't call HL:Opposing Force or Blue Shift as HL2 and HL3.
 
faugusztin said:
I don't think it is fair to call it Overwatch 2. It will either be an alternative game set in same universe, or even a "coop DLC" for Overwatch. Just as you wouldn't call HL:Opposing Force or Blue Shift as HL2 and HL3.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. When is the last time Blizzard released a full on sequel to a game they've been actively adding content to? I don't think they ever have. It would be stupid in so many ways.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Perhaps. But Blizzard has supported macOS more than any other developer. Literally every other Blizzard game is available on macOS except Overwatch. Which I think is more an issue that Apple had a phase between OpenGL and metal. And in that time they didn’t have a modern API to program onto.

Overwatch fell squarely in that time and they never bothered to correct it. Even with Metal 2 being a very easy to program for and port to and it’s modern.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt that be more evidence for what I am saying? You got a company that has all their games on macs and their latest one is just like nope not worth it.
 
rudy said:
Wouldnt that be more evidence for what I am saying? You got a company that has all their games on macs and their latest one is just like nope not worth it.
Click to expand...

Your post has a lot of generalities. There is still tons of development for games on Mac. For instance, right now I’m finally getting around to Deus Ex Mankind Divided, which is a AAA available on macOS.

Browse Steams’s macOS section. It’s obviously not as big as the PC side, but there are a lot of developers making games on macOS. I would say that any company that says "it's not worth it" is incredibly short sighted. Because the profit potential is there. It won't be as high as PC obviously, but it is more income that they wouldn't have had if they didn't/don't do it. Much like developing for a single console vs being multi console. Or developing for every platform versus not for that matter.
 
sharknice said:
I agree with that. When is the last time Blizzard released a full on sequel to a game they've been actively adding content to? I don't think they ever have. It would be stupid in so many ways.
Click to expand...

Yeah this sounds weird seeing there is still a steady stream of content comming out for Overwatch, maybe a different type of game in the same universe, maybe a looter/shooter like destiny or something now that bungie has split of.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Your post has a lot of generalities. There is still tons of development for games on Mac. For instance, right now I’m finally getting around to Deus Ex Mankind Divided, which is a AAA available on macOS.

Browse Steams’s macOS section. It’s obviously not as big as the PC side, but there are a lot of developers making games on macOS. I would say that any company that says "it's not worth it" is incredibly short sighted. Because the profit potential is there. It won't be as high as PC obviously, but it is more income that they wouldn't have had if they didn't/don't do it. Much like developing for a single console vs being multi console. Or developing for every platform versus not for that matter.
Click to expand...

The thing is that if the profit potential was there blizzard of all companies would know it, as a Mac user you probably have a bias or desire for them to do this and it clouds your rational judgment. A ton of companies experimented with developing for macs in the last 10 years. If it was as profitable as you feel they would all still be doing it. And blizzard being a company that has done it for as you say all but one of their titles, and charges a premium for their games, would know better than anyone.

Yes, I am making generalities that's how you do things in business, you don't look for exceptions unless you are convinced you are the exception. And the general trend I see is that a ton of companies went on Linux and Mac development experiments in the last 10 years and many of them have backed off because they must have seen that it's not worth it. There are probably lots of reasons for this.

Most Mac users have ultrabooks, IE very thin machines with very limited cooling and gaming potential.
Apple has literally given up on desktops they haven't made a consumer-focused product in more years than I can remember. Mac pros are too expensive and enterprise focused to count. All in ones are just slightly better cooling laptops.
It is becoming obvious that Apple's long term plan is to ditch the entire X86 line and try to force all their consumers to ARM solutions. Why invest in porting your engine for this now unless it's highly profitable right now. Just wait till the situations shake out and see where things land is probably becoming a more popular stance in board rooms.

All these reasons are getting powerful because we live in a day and age where porting is pretty easy there are a lot of tools and cross-platform engines.

Obviously, different companies will see it differently, but you can look out there and see there is a general shift back. Personally, I think one factor a lot of people forget is that sometimes you think something is a good idea because it's new and you can make a lot of money being one of the few doing it. Like with Linux, when very few games were available for Linux the few games would get lots of sales. But as more and more games released the appetite for that many games was split up more and the profits dropped. I think with the small market share Apple and Linux have there is an equilibrium and you don't want to be developing for either of those unless there aren't many companies doing it. Once too many fish jump into the pond you might be better off to get out.
 
rudy said:
The thing is that if the profit potential was there blizzard of all companies would know it, as a Mac user you probably have a bias or desire for them to do this and it clouds your rational judgment. A ton of companies experimented with developing for macs in the last 10 years. If it was as profitable as you feel they would all still be doing it. And blizzard being a company that has done it for as you say all but one of their titles, and charges a premium for their games, would know better than anyone.

Yes, I am making generalities that's how you do things in business, you don't look for exceptions unless you are convinced you are the exception. And the general trend I see is that a ton of companies went on Linux and Mac development experiments in the last 10 years and many of them have backed off because they must have seen that it's not worth it. There are probably lots of reasons for this.

Most Mac users have ultrabooks, IE very thin machines with very limited cooling and gaming potential.
Apple has literally given up on desktops they haven't made a consumer-focused product in more years than I can remember. Mac pros are too expensive and enterprise focused to count. All in ones are just slightly better cooling laptops.
It is becoming obvious that Apple's long term plan is to ditch the entire X86 line and try to force all their consumers to ARM solutions. Why invest in porting your engine for this now unless it's highly profitable right now. Just wait till the situations shake out and see where things land is probably becoming a more popular stance in board rooms.

All these reasons are getting powerful because we live in a day and age where porting is pretty easy there are a lot of tools and cross-platform engines.

Obviously, different companies will see it differently, but you can look out there and see there is a general shift back. Personally, I think one factor a lot of people forget is that sometimes you think something is a good idea because it's new and you can make a lot of money being one of the few doing it. Like with Linux, when very few games were available for Linux the few games would get lots of sales. But as more and more games released the appetite for that many games was split up more and the profits dropped. I think with the small market share Apple and Linux have there is an equilibrium and you don't want to be developing for either of those unless there aren't many companies doing it. Once too many fish jump into the pond you might be better off to get out.
Click to expand...


You've created a lot of generalities about who is on the macOS platform. And sure, it's possible that I'm an exception. But considering that the Macbook Pro is the most sold system that they have, there is absolutely a minimum series of specs that users have and could be worked with. Most of Apple's hardware sold isn't the MBA or the MB. And that ignores how much they've been investing in the desktop and yes how many desktops are getting put out there. 27" iMacs from 2013 are competent. As are basically any machine that supports Metal 2. Bringing Mac Pros into this is essentially a non-starter. And is unnecessary. As is discussing their potential future in terms of ARM architecture as it also doesn't affect their now. This whole discussion also ignores a great amount of users using eGPUs.

There isn't much point in debating this further. There are a lot of things that could be talked about or addressed here. But suffice it to say, AAA is on the platform. Companies that are smart are using Vulkan/OpenGL so they can easily port to console and also consequently macOS. Those that aren't doing those things are leaving money on the table. Just like NOT servicing the Xbox One makes developers less money (despite it being the lowest sold console of this generation), similarly NOT selling on macOS definitely makes developers less money.

We've derailed enough. Let's let folks get back to Overwatch 2, if it is indeed coming.
 
They are outside of generalities now, they are physical limitations, for instance you cant configure any macbook pro with more than a 4GB graphics card. And that is the top of the line system that costs over 2K. it's literally cheaper to tell a Mac user to buy a desktop PC to complement their MacBook if they want to game. And why is that? Because Apple only sells thin ultrabooks or close to it now so they don't have the ability to make high end gaming machines because they cant cool high end CPUs or GPUs in those small form factors.
 
MacOs support went out the window when Blizzard jumped on the console bandwagon. Consoles now=mini pc's. Picked up HUUUUGE money on that. Back when Blizzard made only PC games, sure every little bit of support money wise helped. Now, nah. It was time to dump it.

Overwatch 2, why? They can milk the current version for 2-3 years, just drop more maps.
 
SnowBeast said:
Overwatch 2, why? They can milk the current version for 2-3 years, just drop more maps.
Click to expand...

If they do choose to make Overwatch 2 as opposed to continued support of Overwatch then it has to be about revitalizing the scene. EA/Blizzard know their numbers better than anyone. All the games are literally put through Battle.net.
No one has been able to replicate the success of CS as being a very long term game played with incremental improvements. Indeed it's probably impossible to do something like what CS did from beta to 1.6 again unless there is a new paradigm in gaming that is so different and novel that this progression is allowed (which not even Fortnite had. Already there are competitors in the same space/genre and at least 3 iterations of "Battle Royale" games have spawned). The time during CS' creation is over. And although Overwatch is decidedly much more refined than its competitors, it is not a novel experience.

Blizzard in general I think has realized this. I think that's the real reason why SC 2 was broken into three parts. It was less about making 3x the money and more about making sure there were large changes in the game/format so that it would/could have a continuous scene of gamers supporting it. As well as providing validity to continue playing it in tournaments. In this way it's similar to the progression of SFIII to 2nd Impact to Third Strike. It's better to iterate "early and often" by going as far as to release a "new game" under a new version just to revitalize the scene and bring back players. It also doesn't hurt that it helps them to sell a new product.
 
Last edited:
I would say that league of legends has replicated the success of counterstrike. AFAIK they have only had one version, LoL is more like a service. It is still one of the most popular games on earth and it is almost 10 years old now. More importantly, I have noticed a general trend in gaming, there is always some faster-paced shooter that is less popular than some big realistic shooter, but none of them every lasts, it's more like the psychological attraction of people who like that fast-paced shooter just lends them to not really stick with games. Counterstrike players are the opposite a lot of them are very type S personality-wise, they are totally fine with just playing dust2 over and over for a decade straight maybe that is even what they prefer. Most games though go through up and down cycles and I don't think overwatch will be an exception.
 
rudy said:
t is still one of the most popular games on earth and it is almost 10 years old now.
Click to expand...

It also runs on a potato (I have a few potatoes) and manages to not look horrid doing it, while keeping the fun up. That's a Nintendo-grade achievement.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
BI think that's the real reason why SC 2 was broken into three parts. It was less about making 3x the money and more about making sure there were large changes in the game/format so that it would/could have a continuous scene of gamers supporting it.
Click to expand...

I think you have it exactly backwards. Companies want to make money. Overwatch isn't making money anymore (maybe a bit from advertising on eSports). They want more revenue.
 
Yippee38 said:
I think you have it exactly backwards. Companies want to make money. Overwatch isn't making money anymore (maybe a bit from advertising on eSports). They want more revenue.
Click to expand...

I think if you're thinking about purely selling copies of a game as the only way to make money you have a myopic view. SC 2 as an example is incredibly valuable even though it's essentially F2P for multiplayer (meaning you have all of the content, units, and maps for free if you're a multiplayer only player). If selling copies was the only way it could make money then it only does a limited level of that. If Blizzard wanted to have the Activision/EA model of releasing a new title in a brand every year in order to "make money" and also devalue its brand and properties it could easily do that. And perhaps that is where Blizzard is headed after the acquisition. But there is a reason why there isn't Diablo 12 and StarCraft 15 and Overwatch: Modern Warfare Future perfect 7, yet.

If you reject my reasoning then you have to be able to insert your reasoning which has to holistically look at all their franchises and the time and level placed into them. Blizzard has been around for around 30 years and has only produced 3 major series of games with Overwatch arguably being the fourth. Player base = money. Content is used to have and keep the player base.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
If you reject my reasoning then you have to be able to insert your reasoning which has to holistically look at all their franchises and the time and level placed into them. Blizzard has been around for around 30 years and has only produced 3 major series of games with Overwatch arguably being the fourth. Player base = money. Content is used to have and keep the player base.
Click to expand...

Well, I tell you what. I won't reject your reasoning, if you acutally give me reasoning. Nothing you describe talks about how playerbase = income. Please give me an argument so I can be swayed to your point. Just saying playerbase = money isn't an argument. It's just a statement with nothing backing it up. Maybe you're right. I don't know.

I can tell you that selling copies of games generates revenue. Now you tell me how having a large playerbase generates revenue.
 
Overwatch was the result of Blizz salvaging assets from project Titan; they never intended to be the owners of a team-based shooter and it shows in their inability to balance it. The typical Blizzard balance is usually in effect, where they rashly nerf or buff heroes, leaving them either OP or totally useless for months and months at a time. They post an update to their PTR, then ignore all the feedback they receive and go live anyway. They added Ashe on a whim because she was "cool," and not because she was a planned release for the game, adding yet another hitscan hero to the game while at the same time nerfing Pharah's splash damage.

Meanwhile, they want it to be taken seriously as the e-sport of all e-sports. They should be 100% focused on continuing developing of the current OW and hyping the shit out of it with such lofty goals, not having long periods of developer radio silence and/or inaction. "Overwatch 2" sounds stupid as hell when you already (poorly) run the original game as a service.
 
I got the first one through Humble Monthly a while back and never got around to installing it.
If they throw in a decent coop pve campaign of some sort then I might be more likely to try it.
 
Yippee38 said:
Well, I tell you what. I won't reject your reasoning, if you acutally give me reasoning. Nothing you describe talks about how playerbase = income. Please give me an argument so I can be swayed to your point. Just saying playerbase = money isn't an argument. It's just a statement with nothing backing it up. Maybe you're right. I don't know.

I can tell you that selling copies of games generates revenue. Now you tell me how having a large playerbase generates revenue.
Click to expand...



Look at the majority of the world's top games today, most are free 2 play, that is pretty good evidence that playerbase = revenue. Now days when revenue starts dropping companies switch the game to free 2 play to increase the player base and in turn increase revenue.

We know those games are making revenue I even know it personally as I know a number of csgo skin makers who are taking in the cash. And numbers come out about fortnite and so on.
 
Aix. said:
Overwatch was the result of Blizz salvaging assets from project Titan; they never intended to be the owners of a team-based shooter and it shows in their inability to balance it. The typical Blizzard balance is usually in effect, where they rashly nerf or buff heroes, leaving them either OP or totally useless for months and months at a time. They post an update to their PTR, then ignore all the feedback they receive and go live anyway. They added Ashe on a whim because she was "cool," and not because she was a planned release for the game, adding yet another hitscan hero to the game while at the same time nerfing Pharah's splash damage.

Meanwhile, they want it to be taken seriously as the e-sport of all e-sports. They should be 100% focused on continuing developing of the current OW and hyping the shit out of it with such lofty goals, not having long periods of developer radio silence and/or inaction. "Overwatch 2" sounds stupid as hell when you already (poorly) run the original game as a service.
Click to expand...

I have a funny theory about this I noticed whenever blizzard would do balance changes everything is always on nice even round numbers like on 10s or 5s etc.... My theory is that someone in charge at blizzard has a severe case of OCD or some other disorder like monk where they cant have anything be sitting at intermediate values, therefore they can never really tune hero balance.
 
rudy said:
More importantly, I have noticed a general trend in gaming, there is always some faster-paced shooter that is less popular than some big realistic shooter, but none of them every lasts, it's more like the psychological attraction of people who like that fast-paced shooter just lends them to not really stick with games. Counterstrike players are the opposite a lot of them are very type S personality-wise, they are totally fine with just playing dust2 over and over for a decade straight maybe that is even what they prefer.
Click to expand...

You and I must think of completely different games when we talk about "fast paced shooters". Quake 3 was released back in 1999. That's 20 years of Blood Run. More if we count the original QW map.

On the other hand, how many big budget fast-paced shooters have been released over the last 15 years? Painkiller, Doom 2016, Overwatch, possibly Titanfall. That's it. Even you theory is correct, we don't have a lot to choose from :/
 
Fast paced is relative, the slow paced games to me are all the realistic shooters, BF, CS, Etc. Relatively all the team based shooters
dgz said:
You and I must think of completely different games when we talk about "fast paced shooters". Quake 3 was released back in 1999. That's 20 years of Blood Run. More if we count the original QW map.

On the other hand, how many big budget fast-paced shooters have been released over the last 15 years? Painkiller, Doom 2016, Overwatch, possibly Titanfall. That's it. Even you theory is correct, we don't have a lot to choose from :/
Click to expand...

When you consider that there are people who have been playing counterstrike and making it one of the most popular games on earth for that entire 15 years I think it adds a lot of evidence to my point. No fast-paced, or dynamic game of any sort has lasted that long and definitely not at a highly competitive level with a large player base and trust me some have tried, how many times has id tried to get some traction behind quake and seen it flop? Quake 4, Quake Champions.

Now fast-paced is up for interpretation people get into a dick waving matches over what games are the fastest but that isn't the point I dont care which ones are the fastest I don't care for gatekeeping. Plenty of games that are faster than the realistic shooters like counterstrike have released. And there is always one game that is sort of the team-based, and usually class-based shooter that serves as a competitive game on the side, right now that is overwatch, 5 years ago it was Team Fortress 2 prior to that it was RTCW, and before that Tribes 2. That game shifts every 3 to 5 years and interestingly the same players who play that game will often move to the new game. And many times people who were really good at the end of the old game become pros in the new game. Case in point a lot of Overwatch pros come from Team Fortress 2, and a lot of team fortress 2 pros came from RTCW, and a lot of RTCW pros came from tribes 2, and a lot of tribes 2 pros came from fast-paced games like HLDM, Unreal, Quake. That's the trend I am pointing out.

I consider games that usually have advanced movement, some sort of air play and people moving faster than any human could run to be the fast-paced games, at the slower end that might include RTCW, at the faster end that's HLDM or Tribes in the middle you have the later quake games, team fortress, apex legends. All tribes games including the latest tribes ascend, all quake games including the latest quake champions, titan fall, apex legends, overwatch are lumped in there and released in the last 15 years. As for not having a lot to choose from, well that makes my point even more clear if there were not a lot to choose from you would think the people who like that would be more likely to stick with one and support it and build a large player base on it. Now let's compare that with realistic shooters, those are a dime a dozen so they should split the community up more but it doesn't seem to work that way. People who like slow realistic shooters tend to have more loyalty to their game than people who like the fast-paced shooters. As soon as apex legends came out a bunch of overwatch pros were like screw overwatch and ran off to the apex. Maybe those types of people just like variety in their games and eventually that means they have to move to a new game. Maybe that variety in play, classes, and weapons is what attracts them to the games in the first place and they always want things changing, but after a couple of years the game can't change enough to please them and they have to go to a new fast-paced shooter. And if that is true it means that no one, no matter how hard they try could ever make a game that is a fast-paced shooter that lasts.
 
Last edited:
Whether it's a DLC or a sequel I'll pick it up. I spent a lot of hours playing in OW and I'm down for whatever Blizzard releases related to the franchise, plus playing pharah reminds me of my days playing Tribes 1/2
 
rudy said:
Fast paced is relative, the slow paced games to me are all the realistic shooters, BF, CS, Etc. Relatively all the team based shooters


When you consider that there are people who have been playing counterstrike and making it one of the most popular games on earth for that entire 15 years I think it adds a lot of evidence to my point. No fast-paced, or dynamic game of any sort has lasted that long and definitely not at a highly competitive level with a large player base and trust me some have tried, how many times has id tried to get some traction behind quake and seen it flop? Quake 4, Quake Champions.

Now fast-paced is up for interpretation people get into a dick waving matches over what games are the fastest but that isn't the point I dont care which ones are the fastest I don't care for gatekeeping. Plenty of games that are faster than the realistic shooters like counterstrike have released. And there is always one game that is sort of the team-based, and usually class-based shooter that serves as a competitive game on the side, right now that is overwatch, 5 years ago it was Team Fortress 2 prior to that it was RTCW, and before that Tribes 2. That game shifts every 3 to 5 years and interestingly the same players who play that game will often move to the new game. And many times people who were really good at the end of the old game become pros in the new game. Case in point a lot of Overwatch pros come from Team Fortress 2, and a lot of team fortress 2 pros came from RTCW, and a lot of RTCW pros came from tribes 2, and a lot of tribes 2 pros came from fast-paced games like HLDM, Unreal, Quake. That's the trend I am pointing out.

I consider games that usually have advanced movement, some sort of air play and people moving faster than any human could run to be the fast-paced games, at the slower end that might include RTCW, at the faster end that's HLDM or Tribes in the middle you have the later quake games, team fortress, apex legends. All tribes games including the latest tribes ascend, all quake games including the latest quake champions, titan fall, apex legends, overwatch are lumped in there and released in the last 15 years. As for not having a lot to choose from, well that makes my point even more clear if there were not a lot to choose from you would think the people who like that would be more likely to stick with one and support it and build a large player base on it. Now let's compare that with realistic shooters, those are a dime a dozen so they should split the community up more but it doesn't seem to work that way. People who like slow realistic shooters tend to have more loyalty to their game than people who like the fast-paced shooters. As soon as apex legends came out a bunch of overwatch pros were like screw overwatch and ran off to the apex. Maybe those types of people just like variety in their games and eventually that means they have to move to a new game. Maybe that variety in play, classes, and weapons is what attracts them to the games in the first place and they always want things changing, but after a couple of years the game can't change enough to please them and they have to go to a new fast-paced shooter. And if that is true it means that no one, no matter how hard they try could ever make a game that is a fast-paced shooter that lasts.
Click to expand...

I got you the first time, my man. As I said, some of us have been playing Quake for more than 20 years. Isn't that loyal enough? It's just that fast-paced sci-fi shooters are a bit too fast and hard for the vast majority of the population. It takes a lot of dedication to even brake in the scene. It's not like playing HLDM/AG/HLDM2, RTCW, Quake*, UT*, etc. are not easy.

Recently I started playing QL again and frankly I am getting owned non-stop. I know what I am consistently losing 200/200 to 100/100 fights in duel. Best I can do is not die 50 times in 10 minutes. How many new comers would be willing to put up with this bullshit?

TF2 was seriously meh until the magical Payload update. The final version would easily get my personal best team-based shooter ever.

I was told Titanfall 1/2 were great examples of good fast-paced games that never took off. Not sure whether loyalty has anything to do with it, though. Personally, I didn't like the weapon selection and the way fights develop. Movements seems nice but you're not allowed to use while shooting. What? Fuck this shit.

What kills most fast sci-fi shooters is their creators. Yes, they are. id Software could've done something with Doom 2016. They chose to milk it with paid maps lol. For a full priced game.
Which party is the loyal one here? The ones that pay, or the ones that don't. I didn't.

What I really want is sci-fi battle royal in space. 3d maps instead of open-space pubg 2d style maps. It could work. Gravity play, boosters, basic resource (suit power/fuel/heat/ammo) management, situational awareness tools. Basically a Crysis game done right and in space. Or say, a something like Prey 2006 on steroids. Or Duke Nukem 3D redone with the latest id tech. OH MY GOD
 
https://www.pcgamer.com/au/overwatch-2-rumors-gain-momentum-with-new-leaked-image-featuring-echo/

8LByGqpsVpeW9wD7EK5rBh.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top