I’m actually loving it 😅
I remember fondly playing overwatch 1 with my friends and sinking in hundreds of hours. If they wanted to break into the steam market they should have done it with the first one. Not with their lackluster, phoned in sequel. This was just stupid of them.
Let’s be real, Overwatch 2 was an update patch that they tried to sell as a sequel.
An update patch that introduced the most amazing feature: monetization!
They destroyed Overwatch 1 and gave us Overwatch 2.
I want to play Overwatch 1. :(
Don’t worry, another year or two and they’ll be selling us Overwatch Classic™ for $15 a month.
Which one? The game was rebalanced so many times it was basically several different games. If they put in a 2-2-2 mode with the weaker open-queue tanks, I’d call that close-enough to Overwatch 1. Of course, that still would mean the new expensive monetization model. Like there’s one skin in the free tier of the current battle-pass, and it’s for Torb.
i miss 6 torb games, ow was good when quick play was just goofy
I miss the old Blizzard.
How old are we talking about? For me peak Blizzard was Diablo 2 / StarCraft 1 & 2 / WarCraft 3. Of course D1 & WC2 also remember fondly.
For me it was Orcs and Humans.
Rock n Roll Racing.
Blackthorne and that one with the 3 dwarves
Guess that’ll be the last time they put a game on steam
You poor soul, do you think they give one single fuck?
Blizzard is tone deaf, all they look at is the moneyflow
How is everybody just now finding out how capitalism works? Any public company is LEGALLY REQUIRED to care only about shareholder profits. It is literally illegal for them to do anything else.
That’s a widespread belief my friend, that is just not true.
It’s absolutely true in practice. CEOs have gotten sued for not acting in the shareholders best interests.
And in relation to the original comment I replied to, are you truly saying that companies, esp. public companies, are not, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, beholden to making money for the shareholders? Any “nice” company will make less money, will not compete well, will then fail or be bought out by the less nice, more profitable company.
Im not a lawyer, but I’ve looked into this misunderstanding before and it stems from what constitutes "breaking one’s fiduciary duty to investors. While deliberately acting against the interests of investors is illegal, ive yet to hear of a lawsuit, let alone a successful one, brought by an investor for not making all of the money. Id be interested in hearing an investment oriented lawyers perspective since from what i understand, the full extent of fiduciary duty has not been tested that way in court
