WhenOverwatch 2first showed up, I had a lot of burning questions: what would they do differently? Was this going to be a full-fat sequel or just a big update? Both? Neither? Now that I’ve had some time with it, most of my queries have been put to bed, but I still have an uncomfortable feeling about some stuff that I can’t quite get a handle on until the game has been out for a little longer. As things stand, I worry that Blizzard’s new financial model threatens to undermine what is still a fantastic game.
Overwatch 2 is, as most of you are probably aware, free to play, unlike the previous game. It’s a bold move by Blizzard and if they do it right, it could pay off big time. The free-to-play model, if handled with the appropriate care, can work. Games likeDestiny 2,Apex Legends,Team Fortress 2, and of courseFortnitehave all seen huge success. I can envisage a world in which Overwatch 2 follows in their footsteps, but the early signs aren’t good, and in the wake of the (justified) anger aroundDiablo Immortal’s microtransactions, and other recent Blizzard missteps my hopes are not high. I believe in the free-to-play model, but I’m not sure if I believe in Blizzard
Related:Overwatch 2 Not Having Lootboxes Is Good But We Need To Be Wary
My big concern is the way Blizzard has implemented the Battle Pass. In the original game, new heroes were released for free, and more importantly, were immediately available to everyone. Ana, Sombra, Orisa, and the rest were slotted straight into the roster alongside the heroes already in the game. The new heroKiriko, by contrast, is available (for use in competitive play) on the free track of the battle pass, but you’ll have to grind for upwards of 20 hours to unlock her.
Now, this might have something to do with thechange of leadership on the projectbut I feel this change reflects a critical lack of appreciation for something the first game got right. The first game’s director, Jeff Kaplan, seemed to understand that in a game like Overwatch every player having access to every hero is foundational. The nature of the game demands it.
Almost all competitive multiplayer games employ some kind of class system, but the characters on offer tend to be basically interchangeable. They will likely have similar amounts of health, and all put out a reasonable DPS. In Overwatch, this is not the case; each hero has a highly specialised role, even within their class. There’s a tripartite division between tanks, DPS, and support, but there is huge variation even within each class.
Reinhardt and Roadhog for instance (both tanks) have completely different roles on the battlefield. Reinhardt can deploy a powerful barrier which can shield an entire team as they advance, while Roadhog uses a hook to pull squishier enemy heroes into shotgun range, and is best suited to disrupting the opposing team’s formation. Pull the enemy Reinhardt out of the way and his entire team is exposed. It doesn’t stop there. Winston, also a tank, is great for leaping over the enemy frontline, taking out a couple of healers, and then jumping back to safety. If you want to know more about tanks in Overwatch check out ourhandy tank guide.
Related:Overwatch 2: 10 Tips For Beginners
Every hero is absolutely unique, and that has a serious knock-on effect when it comes to team composition. You need to use your hero’s strengths to compensate for your teammate’s shortcomings. A team with Mercy, who has a powerful single target heal and almost no offensive capability, is going to look very different from a team with Lucio, who has a weaker AoE heal but can hold his own in combat. Synergy is everything and the right composition is key to victory. It’s a very strong argumentnotto lock certain heroes behind a paywall or grinding.
This is where I foresee issues for Overwatch 2. A new hero is so much more than just a new character model, or a new version of an existing character with their abilities tweaked. They are a whole new suite of strategic options, which it isn’t fair for some players to have and not others. It would be like having to unlock your bishops in a game of chess, or the ability to block in Street Fighter. Each hero is one element of a given player’s toolkit, and the game requires that everyone have access to all the same pieces.
New players will have to grind their way through Overwatch 2’s “First Time User Experience” (relatively quick at roughly 100 quickplay matches) to unlock the rest of the cast, but right now there is only one battle pass and only one hero exclusive to it, so the problem isn’tthatsevere.
But what about a year down the line? The plan is to release a new hero every alternate season, which would mean six heroes a year. If they all have to be unlocked in the same way as Kiriko, new players could end up falling behind in a serious way. Other players who have more time, or who have paid money, will have access to strategies and tactical options that newer players won’t be able to replicate, and I can see that turning a lot of people off. You get the new heroes immediately if you pay for the battlepass, and players who do so every time a new one is released are going to have an unfair advantage. They will effectively put themselves hundreds of hours of gameplay ahead of players who don’t want to buy in.
Having to face heroes that you haven’t even had a chance to practice with in a competitive setting wouldn’t feel fair. Maybe Blizzard have something up their sleeve to prevent this, but there’s good reason to not have much confidence in them at this point. A more cynical person could go as far as to say that Blizzard knows how important it is to have access to all the heroes, and are hoping that will be enough to get people to pay up. It remains to be seen whether this attempt to exploit people’s fear of missing out will actually work.
I do sincerely hope that none of this comes to pass, because Overwatch 2 is still a great game at its core, and free-to-play can work. Fingers crossed Blizzard don’t ruin the fun for everyone.
Next:Blizzard Patches Overwatch 2 Purchasing Bug But Isn’t Offering Refunds
