Lol. After all these years they’re thinking of rolling back the 5v5 changes. To quote someone from Reddit:

PVE was dropped, heroes are free again, and now 6v6 is back. Blizzard spent the last couple of years turning overwatch 2 back into Overwatch 1.

Edit: See also the developer’s blog post about this, which goes into great detail explaining their decisions over the year and how we got here. Really worth a read if you are (or were) an OW player.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Well, they also sell weapon skins that cost as much as the entire game used to cost. So I’m sure they are just trying to do damage control while also not changing their monetization.

    • miau@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t personally mind microtransactions as long as they are cosmetic only. What I do mind is how matchmaking got terribly bad.

      • TommySoda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t mind it if the game was always free to play. They gotta make their money somehow if that’s the case. The problem I have with Overwatch and the microtransactions is that they went free to play after they already made a fuck ton of money off of loot boxes and the fact that you used to actually have to buy the game. It’s just a cash cow and gameplay (including matchmaking, like you said) has suffered considerably. Not only that but they charge as much money as entire games for skins. Games like Overwatch when it first came out.

        I don’t mind microtransactions in free to play games, I really don’t. It’s just the method they are using is just blatantly greedy and targeted for whales that will pay anything for fear of missing out.

  • warm@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Overwatch was so fun, the devs just kept adding and changing shit that we didn’t need. OW2 is a complete distaster though, they can keep their predatory macrotransactions, just revert to the OW1 patch for everything else.

    • rigatti@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      What macrotransactions? The game is free and the only this that’s monetized is cosmetics.

      • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        You have to buy the battlepass to use the newest characters. And the cosmetics used to be free.

        They monetized competitive gameplay elements and cosmetics that were supposed to come with the $60 I spent. Both of these are microtransactions.

        • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          They actually changed that a while back, new heroes aren’t in the battlepass any more, everyone gets them for free. I don’t know how that works with the “new player experience” where you needed to win games to unlock the base heroes on a new account though.

            • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Found it

              Starting Season 10, all new heroes will be immediately unlocked when they launch. All existing heroes will also be unlocked for players. This means that heroes will no longer need to be unlocked through the Battle Pass to be playable in all game modes.

              New players will still need to complete the first-time user experience to unlock heroes as they learn the ropes. Once the heroes from the original Overwatch roster have been unlocked, all Overwatch 2 heroes will also become available.

              So unless there was another change, new players still need to play/win games in order to unlock the full roster.

        • rigatti@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah I realize that looks dumb now. I was thinking of microtransactions that affect gameplay. You know, the important kind.

          • cheddar@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            If cosmetics weren’t important to players, people wouldn’t spend money to buy them. We are human, we care about looks, that’s why companies make so much money on cosmetics. So yes, it is important enough to dislike predatory microtransactions.

          • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Microtransactions don’t have to affect gameplay any more. The video games industry has successfully sold this narrative (“Please ignore cosmetic microtransactions mkay?!”) while also raising a whole new generation of gamers that value ingame cosmetics to a social-interactions-affecting degree.

            There’s a reason kids laugh at one another over default skins in Fortnite or lack of cash in Roblox and so on.

            Plus just as importantly, they normalize mtx on an industry level, making selling of other types of monetization easier in the future.

          • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Did you play the OG, you could get basically everything for free. All it cost was time. OW2 is just an enshittified update

              • Tedrow@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                And now it’s $40 for a skin. What’s your argument? Lots of people already bought the game and were forced into the current system.

          • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Non-essential and predatory are not mutually exclusive, especially given Blizzard’s history of player manipulation. They have perfected the science of making you want someone that you don’t need.

          • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I mean, cars aren’t essential to existence either, just don’t buy them <-- technically correct, but not at all a helpful statement when discussing car-price-related issues.

        • Sabata@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That’s the price of a full game, in a game that I paid full price for, that I had removed from me for not paying enough.

          • Gerudo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            There is still literal story content behind a paywall. Just load the game and see for yourself.

            • rigatti@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Oh true, the partially delivered PvE content that was canceled almost immediately after releasing after a year delay.

  • eldrichhydralisk@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m glad they’re looking into 6v6, but I honestly like 5v5 better. Queue times are short, games play quick, and it’s easier to keep track of what’s going on. It does put a lot of pressure on the solo tank, but not so much that I don’t enjoy playing tank.

    I’m more interested to see where they go with some of the other queue changes they mentioned. If they can add some more flexibility than “1-2-2 only” in a way that doesn’t totally break team comp, that could be a lot of fun!

    • shrodes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I completely gave up on the game after they killed the PvE / skill plans for 2 (around Lifeweaver launch), but I played quite a lot of 2 from launch and agree. I really like 5v5 and team structure wise to me the game felt in a great place with the change.

      My guess is that they’re still bleeding players and looking for any shot in the arm to bring the oldheads back

    • pycorax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yea I actually really like 5v5. It changed the pace of the game to something that I actually like compared to Overwatch 1. That said, the game still failed to keep my interest weeks after release so maybe I’m really just not part of their target audience.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Personally I get why 5v5 was done, but I utterly hate it. It removes all the things that made Overwatch 1 so cool compared to other FPS to me:

      • Slow TTK as a result of two tanks in front of the team.
      • High focus on healing, as someone who enjoys playing healers in all games this was heaven to me.
      • Lower focus on personal damage contribution and aim, as syncing ults, creating trap spots and selectively bursting targets was how you got kills, not just aiming.

      In total, this resulted in me and my friends easily having a game we could all enjoy on a few characters each (me on Moira, Mercy, Torbjörn, Symmetra and Bastion, for example) and talk shit while just playing the entire evening.

      This whole “social” spirit was lost as they slowly pitched the balance towards faster and faster TTK, and ultimately with 5v5. It’s a “competitive FPS” now, but honestly, I don’t need a competitive FPS. Never did. I did however need a social fun low-stakes FPS, back when OW1 came out. And that spot is no longer filled, sadly.

    • Gerudo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Double tank was such a pain in the ass. The new tanks were built to solo tank. It will require an almost 100% tear down and rebuild to get back to 6v6.

  • miau@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I only got into the game after 2 was launched so I only really played the 5x5 mode, but I always thought the 6x6 mode could be fun. Unfortunatelly I am not playing anymore. The core concept of the game is fun, but the matches felt just too unbalanced for me to enjoy. And although I think this change would be fun I don’ think it will fix the balance problem on matchmaking.

  • Omega@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Did OW1 not have PvE when it launched? I remember that being my favorite part of the first game.

    • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Iirc it had occasional pve events but the point of ow2 according to them was to have a permanent pve mode which iirc never happened but I haven’t played in a while so take my words with salt.

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        That sounds right. If PvE wasn’t permanent, it was a pretty common event type.

        • Zorque@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          There were holiday events, like halloween (junkenstein) and an anniversary event covering the robot invasion thing from lore. But I don’t recall there being any permanent events, especially at launch.

  • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I stopped playing shortly after OW2 came out. They killed my favorite role (tank) by throwing one of the tanks away, making the tank role miserable to play since the team fights were always on my shoulders. Then, on top of that, they unbalanced everything even more, and had to update maps for 5v5, forever removing some of them from the game.

    That was all after the slap in the face that was taking away a game I paid money for to replace it with a broken, microtransaction-ridden experience.

    I might be willing to look past the microtransaction BS and play again if they bring 6v6 with some of the original, unmodified OW1 maps.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      The biggest issue is that IMO, even nowadays balance isn’t remotely as good as it was before the change, owing to the massive imbalance on all ends the 5v5-switch introduced, and them only working through that at a glacial pace. But even more so, this is annoying because of how it essentially undermines the reason they did this.

      Sure, the queue time argument still stands. Yeah. But on a balance level, “Double tanks were problematic for game balance” is a bit of a moot point in hindsight. Yeah, they were, sure. Less so than 5v5 is, it turns out.

  • Zahille7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    So why did they drop the team numbers from 6 to 5? Does it really make that much of a difference? Couldn’t they just have both modes available (like Halo has 16v16, 32v32 and such)?

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It makes a massive difference, the game was balanced with 6v6 from the get go, removing a tank completely changes how the game works.

      They had problems with certain tank combinations, but instead of addressing that directly, they just removed one. A lot of changes they made just felt like justifications to calling it a ‘new game’.

      The devs are too proud to add a 6v6 mode along side, it’s took so much pressure for them to finally ‘experiment’ with 6v6, they just won’t admit their modes, changes etc are failures.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        It also essentially undermines the whole idea of the game. “More FPS focus” and “more focus on individual gameplay” are not why I enjoyed OW1 in the first place, after all. It was the game to play with real life friends while hanging out on voice chat and relaxing after work. The mix of high-precision, low-precision, no-precision, tanking, healing, everything meant that there was something for everybody and we could all easily play together and just spend an evening talking shit and doing shit.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          They want everyone to feel powerful on every hero (to sell skins), but that’s not Overwatch’s identity. They took a lot of skill expression and teamplay out of the game.

          I mean the devs are completely clueless anyway, they removed mccrees stun citing “too much CC in the game” while simultaneously adding more CC through both new heros and changing existing ones. Just reading their patch notes shows how lost they are.

          • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Oh the grenade part was so silly. “Hey we are removing the stun, too much CC and let’s be honest, it makes it far too easy to blow up stunned flankers”.

            “Here, as a replacement that’s a homing grenade that just straight up kills the flanker, no stunning necessary.”

            Okay, I guess. 🤷

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s worth it to read the director’s take that goes with this announcement, it’s quite long but goes into great detail about the motivation and effects.

      I hate the change, but I can totally understand why they did it. Much as I personally dislike it.

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is interesting. I mean of course, I am aware of the reasons they did this massive change, and on paper they all made sense ahead of time.

    They also massively degraded the game feel, and IMO were ultimately the wrong solution for the problem(s) they were facing. I understand why they did it, much like I understand why they chased the eSports-hype, but I disagree with all actions taken and their outcomes regardless.

    The game had already mostly lost me by the time OW2 rolled around, and between the very intense-feeling 5v5 that was nothing like the chill chat-with-friends-while-playing-some-OW we had before and the rampant monetization, I just dropped off. I don’t think this will at all make me come back to the game, but on a conceptual level I really enjoy them at least experimenting with undoing a lot of the shit they did to the game over the years, this isn’t the only thing they’re reverting after all.

  • 108@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    It is way too much of a transaction first over any real substance game. This is just something to get people in the door to sell you more crap.

    We don’t even have a game mode filter yet, but they will sure spend the year shoving microtransactions in your face.

  • KittyCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    The fundamental issue with this game is they made some classes absolutely stomp others in 1v1. If you want to make a game that can scale to different team sizes, every class should at least have a chance of beating any other.

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      What you are suggesting is the issue is what they have been trying to ‘fix’, but it goes completely against what Overwatch is and what made it great to begin with. It’s not about 1v1s, it’s a team game and they have attempted to devolve it into a 1v1 game where you just happen to have 4 other teammates.

      A damage hero should absolutely win 1v1 vs a support hero everytime and it shouldn’t even be close.

      It’s fine if you enjoy the solo play style more, but it’s just not what Overwatch is about and why the majority of the original Overwatch playerbase quit.

      • KittyCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Counterpoint, in TF2 teamwork is also very important, yet every class can quickly drop every other one. Even medic can drop a heavy in under 4 seconds of sustained fire.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          This isn’t TF2 though is it, the games were designed differently and achieved different things. If TF2 is the game you want, why not play that? Overwatch had it’s own identity, one the devs have slowly stripped away.

    • miau@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I agree with you, but many players get deeply offended when a dps gets beaten by a sup

  • Xanis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Important to remind everyone that a LOT of your negative memories and feelings surrounding OW1 and 6v6 were due to the migraine magnets called 2cp. Literally a stand in the choke for 9 years and see who correctly uses every Q under the sun correctly first.