Overwatch Is A Global Hit With 7 Million Players - And Counting

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Blizzard has announced that more than seven million people have played Overwatch since launch. Still no word from the company on whether or not they plan to remove the guns from the game yet. ;)

The world needs heroes, and citizens from London to Xi’an to Rio de Janeiro are rising to the occasion to join the ranks of Overwatch®! Blizzard Entertainment’s critically acclaimed team shooter launched worldwide on PlayStation®4, Xbox One, and Windows PC on May 24, and since then more than 7 million players have fought for the future in Overwatch, logging more than 119 million hours combined in one of the most successful global game launches of all time—and the battle is just getting started.
 
ehhh haven't bit the bullet on this... between work and home improvement projects, I should probably wait till a sale...
 
Wow, I knew that it will be very successful but I have no idea how successful it would be just a couple weeks after the launch.
 
It's fun but not a $60 game. Coming from someone who thinks it's possible to have a worthwhile $60 MP only game. We'll see how much content they add to it.
 
How does one specifically value something as being fun or "worth it" or not? Do you enjoy playing it? For extended periods of time? Would the cost of ~$60 for the amount of "fun" you have during the time you play the game not be equivalent to something that provides some level of "fun" likewise? Considering the cost, I can't see why people focus so much on the one time expenditure for a game they're interested in playing.

Now, if you buy it for whatever price and you just fucking hate it with a passion from the moment you start it up (unlikely but it can happen) then sure, ~$60 might seem like a big loss overall but, be honest: how many times in your life have you spent money in that amount, or more, or perhaps even less, and received what you felt was your money's worth down to the last penny spent?

Considering the sheer amount of resources spent to create this game over the past 7 years basically and also considering the rather colossal failure of Titan at Blizzard which prompted them to get up off their beaten asses and create something new and different - which Overwatch happens to be - I can't see how anyone that cares about that company and the franchises it's created for the gaming industry and the gaming community could ever consider ~$60 to not be a good investment in Blizzard's future.

I mean, it's not like Blizzard makes people pay for accessing Battle.net or anything - it's all part of that ~$60 outlay to get into the game's universe that covers it. :)

Hell, my wife still plays Diablo II almost weekly, she just can't let it go after all these years and Blizzard even put out a patch earlier this year to address some things that were actually issues for her on her machine but are now worked out just great. She paid $49.95 for Diablo II back in 1999 and still plays it, has played it since it was released and is STILL playing it. Can anyone say that ~$50 outlay 17 years ago wasn't worth it?

But that's just me, of course, and I freely admit I'm not a gamer - I haven't been serious about gaming since Quake III days (and Quake and Quake II days as well but that was it, never got into anything else because everything else was just an attempt to copy what Quake brought to bear). But I bought Quake for $59.95 when it was released, I paid $49.95 for Quake II, and then $54.95 for Quake III and I damned well know for a fact I got my money's worth from those over the years, hundreds of times over. :)
 
Tiberian said:
How does one specifically value something as being fun or "worth it" or not? Do you enjoy playing it? For extended periods of time? Would the cost of ~$60 for the amount of "fun" you have during the time you play the game not be equivalent to something that provides some level of "fun" likewise? Considering the cost, I can't see why people focus so much on the one time expenditure for a game they're interested in playing.

Now, if you buy it for whatever price and you just fucking hate it with a passion from the moment you start it up (unlikely but it can happen) then sure, ~$60 might seem like a big loss overall but, be honest: how many times in your life have you spent money in that amount, or more, or perhaps even less, and received what you felt was your money's worth down to the last penny spent?

Considering the sheer amount of resources spent to create this game over the past 7 years basically and also considering the rather colossal failure of Titan at Blizzard which prompted them to get up off their beaten asses and create something new and different - which Overwatch happens to be - I can't see how anyone that cares about that company and the franchises it's created for the gaming industry and the gaming community could ever consider ~$60 to not be a good investment in Blizzard's future.

I mean, it's not like Blizzard makes people pay for accessing Battle.net or anything - it's all part of that ~$60 outlay to get into the game's universe that covers it. :)

But that's just me, of course, and I freely admit I'm not a gamer - I haven't been serious about gaming since Quake III days (and Quake and Quake II days as well but that was it, never got into anything else because everything else was just an attempt to copy what Quake brought to bear). But I bought Quake for $59.95 when it was released, I paid $49.95 for Quake II, and then $54.95 for Quake III and I damned well know for a fact I got my money's worth from those over the years, hundreds of times over. :)
Click to expand...

How much time and money a company spends on something is irrelevant. As is the company itself. Brand loyalty is incredibly stupid. Everyone determines value on their own. Some people use time as a metric, some people use content over-all. For the most part its just a feeling people have. Either they feel their money has been well spent on the product or they don't. There are plenty of things a person can dig into and say exactly why a game made them feel that way but, like taste, it is all a personal thing and how those reasons are weighed is unique to each person.
 
Derangel said:
How much time and money a company spends on something is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

And you did quite well in business school with that line of thinking, eh? ;)

When a company as (relatively) dependable as Blizzard comes along and provides people with value for their money (I doubt anyone would argue that point considering how long - yes here's the metric of time at work) for as long as they've been around and the fact that if they hadn't or haven't been providing such value then hey, guess what, they wouldn't have been around as long as they have? Catch-22 much?

Bleh. They make great products, and people all around the world play their games and participate on Battle.net and have done so for a long time and Blizzard survives because of it. I would think that alone is enough "proof" to say they're pretty damned good at what they do when it comes to providing value to consumers/gamers/etc.

But what do I know, I only attended The School of Hard Knocks and I just kinda skimmed through even that.
 
I paid $55 for it. The Origin Edition or whatever it was when you preordered it. All you got was some skins and things for their other games. Do I think it was worth the money? Yes, I'm really enjoying the game. It just feel like a more laid back online FPS game. Unlike your BF/CoD/TitanFall/etc. I just don't care about trying to be super competitive anymore on mp fps games. I just want to have some fun and the community on Overwatch is like that.

You can easily tell the game isn't meant to be for hardcore gamers. The hit boxes are ridiculously large.
 
You know, this game has lots going for it.. varied, interesting characters that are all fun and feel remarkably distinct, good maps, fantastic audio, solid GUI design, etc.etc.

The most impressive thing for me though is the ease of grouping up and using the in-game voice chat. I can't remember any other in-game chat sounding so good and being completely lag-free. The ability to boot up the game and be painlessly grouped up with my friends in a minute or less is a huge part of the reason I'm playing as much as I am.

Developers, make note: When it's easy for people to play together, they'll play together.
 
I might buy it just on their cheating standpoint alone. Excited for a FPS with little amount of cheaters
 
Tiberian said:
How does one specifically value something as being fun or "worth it" or not? Do you enjoy playing it? For extended periods of time? Would the cost of ~$60 for the amount of "fun" you have during the time you play the game not be equivalent to something that provides some level of "fun" likewise? Considering the cost, I can't see why people focus so much on the one time expenditure for a game they're interested in playing.

Now, if you buy it for whatever price and you just fucking hate it with a passion from the moment you start it up (unlikely but it can happen) then sure, ~$60 might seem like a big loss overall but, be honest: how many times in your life have you spent money in that amount, or more, or perhaps even less, and received what you felt was your money's worth down to the last penny spent?

Considering the sheer amount of resources spent to create this game over the past 7 years basically and also considering the rather colossal failure of Titan at Blizzard which prompted them to get up off their beaten asses and create something new and different - which Overwatch happens to be - I can't see how anyone that cares about that company and the franchises it's created for the gaming industry and the gaming community could ever consider ~$60 to not be a good investment in Blizzard's future.

I mean, it's not like Blizzard makes people pay for accessing Battle.net or anything - it's all part of that ~$60 outlay to get into the game's universe that covers it. :)

Hell, my wife still plays Diablo II almost weekly, she just can't let it go after all these years and Blizzard even put out a patch earlier this year to address some things that were actually issues for her on her machine but are now worked out just great. She paid $49.95 for Diablo II back in 1999 and still plays it, has played it since it was released and is STILL playing it. Can anyone say that ~$50 outlay 17 years ago wasn't worth it?

But that's just me, of course, and I freely admit I'm not a gamer - I haven't been serious about gaming since Quake III days (and Quake and Quake II days as well but that was it, never got into anything else because everything else was just an attempt to copy what Quake brought to bear). But I bought Quake for $59.95 when it was released, I paid $49.95 for Quake II, and then $54.95 for Quake III and I damned well know for a fact I got my money's worth from those over the years, hundreds of times over. :)
Click to expand...

Really I'm just quantifying based on variety of maps and game modes, which are almost zero right now, tends to limit the long term play-ability which is something I associate value with. That said the gameplay is rock solid and the class variety is fantastic, both of which are more important. My understanding is they are adding more modes/maps free of cost, my opinion will likely change drastically if they do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rahh
like this
Tiberian said:
And you did quite well in business school with that line of thinking, eh? ;)

When a company as (relatively) dependable as Blizzard comes along and provides people with value for their money (I doubt anyone would argue that point considering how long - yes here's the metric of time at work) for as long as they've been around and the fact that if they hadn't or haven't been providing such value then hey, guess what, they wouldn't have been around as long as they have? Catch-22 much?

Bleh. They make great products, and people all around the world play their games and participate on Battle.net and have done so for a long time and Blizzard survives because of it. I would think that alone is enough "proof" to say they're pretty damned good at what they do when it comes to providing value to consumers/gamers/etc.

But what do I know, I only attended The School of Hard Knocks and I just kinda skimmed through even that.
Click to expand...

Why should consumers care how much a company spent on something? That is not our concern. That's the companies problems, not the consumers. It is the consumer's duty to decide for themselves, based on their own metrics, whether or not a product it worth it. It doesn't matter if a company spent $100k or $100m on the game, what matters is the end result and what people feel about it. I despise the idea of brand loyalty. Blizzard makes a lot of good stuff, but I judge every game based on it's own merit. Whether or not a game interests me is not based on who makes it, but on the game itself. When deciding if I like something or not I don't consider the people responsible, I consider my own experiences with the game.
 
Looking forward to more content, maps, and modes already. I haven't played it much and got to lvl 20 so far but I'm already bored with maps and I don't like the fact you can't chose what map you want to play and the lack of different modes. That being said it was worth 40$ and again I hope to see more added to it.
 
And still a drop in the bucket in terms of revenue compared to whar WoW has done, which really means one thing... microtransactions are coming
 
Taco said:
Really I'm just quantifying based on variety of maps and game modes, which are almost zero right now, tends to limit the long term play-ability which is something I associate value with. That said the gameplay is rock solid and the class variety is fantastic, both of which are more important. My understanding is they are adding more modes/maps free of cost, my opinion will likely change drastically if they do that.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with Tiberian... IMO an easy metric is cost per unit of time. It's easily translated from various forms of entertainment to compare.

I completely see and understand value can be modified by other things (like willing to pay more to support DRM free titles etc), and "longevity". Even something more abstract as MORE fun.

Though my opinion "longevity" specifically is nothing but hours played. If a game doesn't have the maps or longevity you are looking for then you will stop playing it and your hours will stop, thus making cost per unit of time larger... essentially reducing the "value" of the game.

imo If you don't stop playing the game then there has to be something of worth there? right?
 
sfsuphysics said:
And still a drop in the bucket in terms of revenue compared to whar WoW has done, which really means one thing... microtransactions are coming
Click to expand...

To be fair though, I'll wager the number of developer hours / resources necessary to build the game and keep it up and running are a fraction of what WoW has consumed over the years.

I'm still on the fence with this one. I'm still looking for a halfway decent followup to Wolfenstein Enemy Territory and UT2K4. I'm a big fan of the large scale, mission based multiplayer game modes, but it's a genre that seems poorly represented these days.
 
NeoNemesis said:
I'm still on the fence with this one. I'm still looking for a halfway decent followup to Wolfenstein Enemy Territory and UT2K4. I'm a big fan of the large scale, mission based multiplayer game modes, but it's a genre that seems poorly represented these days.
Click to expand...

This game is of course very, very different from those two titles, but if it helps I've been a UT player since the original release (Used to use the openGL driver, lawlz). I've been enjoying the game immensely, but a big part of that is having friends to play with.
 
sfsuphysics said:
And still a drop in the bucket in terms of revenue compared to whar WoW has done, which really means one thing... microtransactions are coming
Click to expand...

Eh? They already have the loot box cosmetic bullshit and you can buy loot boxes if you want more cosmetic bullshit. I really think they'll keep it at that for awhile.

With how they pulled the 180 on DIII and the real money thing I would not expect them to try and reintroduce that mechanic in again. It will be cosmetic things that you can buy with real money.
 
sfsuphysics said:
And still a drop in the bucket in terms of revenue compared to whar WoW has done, which really means one thing... microtransactions are coming
Click to expand...

I don't care if they do microtransactions as long as it's only cosmetics.

They specifically declined to make maps or heroes purchasable items. Of course, they could change that, but they they'd be rightfully taken to the woodshed for it (promising one thing, changing track "because money" as if Blizz games don't print money already).
 
I picked this up for $40, it's very balanced and fast. It's a bit shallow and the graphics are very basic, but it works. I think they may have been benchmarking a Geforce 750 TI as their max performance target, so I can understand the logic at least. Feels like the sort of thing I'll play in small quantities for a long time, like Street Fighter IV.
 
Tiberian said:
And yet in your sig you're pointing out specific hardware components by their brand names, odd how that works, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Because it makes more sense to me to point out specifically what I have. Random product numbers and names are a lot harder to identify. Yet I did not buy one single piece of hardware in my sig specifically because it was from that specific brand. The only time brand entered the occasion for me was when I was looking at reliability and looking at the general reports on them from people.
 
Derangel said:
The only time brand entered the occasion for me was when I was looking at reliability and looking at the general reports on them from people.
Click to expand...

So in other words, because reports from other people talking about a specific brand's product(s) in a favorable light prompted you to take a chance and see for yourself what their products could/should/would do for you in an instance where - before you read those favorable reports from other people - you more than likely would not have chosen to make a purchase of product(s) from that specific brand, did I get that right?

See where this ends up going?
 
lazz said:
This game is of course very, very different from those two titles, but if it helps I've been a UT player since the original release (Used to use the openGL driver, lawlz). I've been enjoying the game immensely, but a big part of that is having friends to play with.
Click to expand...

Ya, friends make the game. I sadly don't have friends anymore :(
 
Tiberian said:
So in other words, because reports from other people talking about a specific brand's product(s) in a favorable light prompted you to take a chance and see for yourself what their products could/should/would do for you in an instance where - before you read those favorable reports from other people - you more than likely would not have chosen to make a purchase of product(s) from that specific brand, did I get that right?

See where this ends up going?
Click to expand...

No, it's part of the research process. I consider doing proper research as part of being a good consumer. When looking at something like brand loyalty, I'm talking more about not looking elsewhere. Simply looking at a single company without considering pros and cons of everyone else. Saying something like "Well I've bought this brand before so I'll never try anything else". Or saying "Because this brand made a few good products that means everything they ever make will be good". Brand history is important, but I don't stick to just one single company. Nor do I believe that brand alone defines quality. I'm always ready for any company to impress or disappoint me. So going back to this discussion. Blizzard has a history of making good games. Does that mean everything they make will be good? No. Does that mean everything they make will be worth what they're asking? No. Therefore everything should be judged entirely on it's own merits and not considered blindly based on the company that made it. I'd argue that launch Diablo 3 is a great example of my point. It was not a good game on launch. It got better and the expansion really made it amazing, but early on it really was not something I'd call worth $60.
 
Bought Overwatch over the weekend after seeing my buddy play it. Holy crap is this game fun! Definitely worth the $40, and I'm excited to see where Blizzard takes the game from here.

I'm enjoying learning the intricacies of all the different heroes, and getting better at team play. I already have a nice group of friends that plays, and I hope more hop on the bandwagon.

I don't think I've been this hyped about a new game release since Borderlands 2.

sfsuphysics said:
And still a drop in the bucket in terms of revenue compared to whar WoW has done, which really means one thing... microtransactions are coming
Click to expand...

FFS man, the game's been out for like two weeks. WoW's been around for twelve years. A bit early to make this assessment, wouldn't you say?
 
Honestly all the videos make me think I would not enjoy the game but everyone I know is raving about it so I am going to pick it up and try it.
 
I'm enjoying it. Quick, easy shooter to play when you only got 10-15 mins of game time.

Game feels very polished. But I expect that of a blizzard game. Characters are awesome. Funny and unique. New characters and maps for free? Yes please. Great team based game.
 
I've been having far more fun playing with randoms vs AI than PvP. I always seem to get stuck with idiots who don't understand the concept of diversifying the team or team synergy, and we get steamrolled.
 
NeoNemesis said:
To be fair though, I'll wager the number of developer hours / resources necessary to build the game and keep it up and running are a fraction of what WoW has consumed over the years.

I'm still on the fence with this one. I'm still looking for a halfway decent followup to Wolfenstein Enemy Territory and UT2K4. I'm a big fan of the large scale, mission based multiplayer game modes, but it's a genre that seems poorly represented these days.
Click to expand...

Loved Wolf:ET. Mostly scratch that itch with Planetside 2 lately. Haven't tried Overwatch, it doesn't seem like my style of game.
 
Quix said:
I think they may have been benchmarking a Geforce 750 TI as their max performance target.
Click to expand...

Hah, thats a good thing for me. I currently am driving a 1440 monitor with a 750Ti (!) until I get a new machine built.

Glad to hear the game is doing well. I'm enjoying it.

Doubt they will, but if they remove the guns I will demand a refund. If blizzard ends up cowtowing to politics I will as well.
 
Game is holding me over until the mmo I have been alpha testing releases next year. OW is really fun, I bought it at $40.
 
Pyroja said:
FFS man, the game's been out for like two weeks. WoW's been around for twelve years. A bit early to make this assessment, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...
Not really, because WoW's business model was to have a constant revenue stream due to the way it worked via monthly subscription (then later buyables), this game is a one time purchase thing, and there is an upper limit to how much revenue they can make from that, ok they effective let you purchase "hats"... so there is some potential additional revenue, but not the same as a monthly fee.
 
game is stupid fun. bottom line. any haters out there wanting to yell TF3, or TF2 ripoff etc etc. seriously, you are just missing out. suck it up and get it.
 
Sovereign said:
I don't care if they do microtransactions as long as it's only cosmetics.

They specifically declined to make maps or heroes purchasable items. Of course, they could change that, but they they'd be rightfully taken to the woodshed for it (promising one thing, changing track "because money" as if Blizz games don't print money already).
Click to expand...

Nah, I see them making expansion packs. Which will end up being 5 new maps, 5 new heroes, and 5 new digital crap for their other games. So you aren't buying a map or a hero. You're buying an expansion pack.
 
MavericK said:
I've been having far more fun playing with randoms vs AI than PvP. I always seem to get stuck with idiots who don't understand the concept of diversifying the team or team synergy, and we get steamrolled.
Click to expand...

Man, I run into that all the time. Diverse team and stick together. Really, that's all there is too it. Yet people run out and try to play like it's CoD, BF, or something else, which you simply can't do.

I kind of expect that when I get into a team where everyone is a single digit level. When my team is composed of lvl 30/40/50, I would not expect that, but it still happens. Usually you can tell within the first minute if your team is going to be any good or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top