How Overwatch 2 Redefines the Sequel, and Not in a Good Way
Much to my surprise, Blizzard has announced a sequel to Overwatch. There were leaks hinting at this, and it was all but confirmed, but it still seemed odd. How would you approach a sequel to one of the most popular games of all time? Would it divide the player base? What would the changes be? Well, all of these questions were answered, and I found them extremely underwhelming, and actually a bit insulting as a consumer. Overwatch is a class-based first person shooter. It’s highly competitive and an online-only title. You can play as a wide range of characters that fill various roles, from damage dealers, to tanks, to healers. Your goal is to defeat the other team in several different game modes. These range from escorting a payload (or opposing the other team’s attempts to), or capturing points on the map that quickly become hotspots for action.
Every so often, the Overwatch team would introduce a new hero, or map. Sometimes, even a limited time game mode like Lucioball or some light PVE elements around Halloween time would be added. These were all offered free of charge, and came with the purchase of the game. Other than that, the majority of revenue generated from Overwatch was likely from the loot boxes. You could purchase a loot box with the hopes of getting a rare skin for some of your favorite heroes. You could also get emotes, icons to display beside your username, or drops of in-game currency so you could save up and manually buy a skin instead of gambling for it. This business model has sustained Overwatch for years. The game is so successful that there’s even an Overwatch League. That’s right, just like hockey or football, Overwatch has its own league, where the best compete.
This is what made the idea of a sequel so interesting. Would all these players have to learn a new game? Would they be left out if they didn’t purchase the sequel? What was changing? What would happen to all the items you got from the loot boxes? Well, the answer is actually really simple, and kind of rubs me the wrong way. For a moment, let’s forget that Overwatch 2 is coming out. Let’s look at this as if it were a content update to the base game. There have been some changes to the engine, giving the game an updated UI and a new look. There’s also some new PVE modes added: a story mode, and something called “Hero Missions”. These apparently come with a new aspect of progression where each hero can be customized with skills/attributes rather than every character being static like in the base game. That’s it. Both games will share the same maps, heroes, game modes, and you’ll retain all the items you got from loot boxes in the base game.
If this seems weird, it’s because it is. What should be a simple expansion is being packaged up and sold as an entirely new game. It’s a bit misleading as well. If you have Overwatch, you’ll be playing with Overwatch 2 owners, and vice versa. You just won’t have access to the new PVE modes unless you buy Overwatch 2. If we look at sequels to other games, like The Last of Us: Part Two, you’ll see what a sequel should be. A massive improvement, an entirely new experience, and a game that stands apart from its predecessor, rather than being a simple extension of it. Even something like Knights Of The Old Republic 2, that was rushed and used the same engine as the first game, offers more new content than Overwatch 2. If you keep the same items, play on the same servers, get the same maps, and characters, then it should simply be an expansion. Blizzard is setting out to redefine what a sequel is, but as I said, they aren’t doing so in a good way. If they set a new precedent that one new feature (PVE Modes) can be boxed up as a full sequel, the gaming industry will be heading in a bad direction.
As Loot Boxes become illegal in more areas of the world, and developers now (in some places) have to disclose the odds of each item in those boxes, it would seem that this is a dying practice. They now have to find other ways that they can generate revenue from their fanbase. Look at the improvement between Starcraft and Starcraft 2. Or Diablo and Diablo 2. Blizzard knows how to do sequels, and they know how to do them well, but this isn’t a sequel. It should be an expansion like most of their games receive or have received in the past. It’s very misleading.
Not everybody stays on top of recent news, and somebody who likes Overwatch and goes into a store and sees Overwatch 2 might think it’s a full-blown sequel, and spend money for what is almost 80% of the same game they already own. Developers should be more upfront with what we’re buying from them. Another example is the upcoming Final Fantasy 7 Remake. That’s the title of the game. It implies that it’s a remake of Final Fantasy 7. While that is true, it’s only a remake of a tiny portion of that game. The title sets a precedent that the game doesn’t deliver on, and I believe that to be a bit immoral. Blizzard also announced Diablo 4. Look at that, and compare it to Diablo 3. It is indeed a sequel. The more you think about it, the more you realize that Overwatch 2 isn’t a sequel. It’s a new game mode being packaged up and sold at what I can only assume will be a regular MSRP for a game.
The story mode may be substantial enough to warrant a sequel, but so far, information on that is scarce. This would be like Call of Duty selling a new campaign at full game price, even though the multiplayer portion remains the exact same as the previous game. That wouldn’t really fly. Blizzard has learned from controversy though, recently apologizing for the Hong Kong dilemma, and announcing Diablo 4 after the less than lukewarm reception to the mobile game “Diablo Immortal”. Perhaps they can earn the 2 in Overwatch 2, but right now, it almost appears as if its Overwatch 1.5, or less.
No matter what happens next, I think it’s important to open up a debate on what developers should be able to get away with. With Star Wars Battlefront 2, the community took a stance against the lootboxes, and this made EA/DICE rework the game and reward system almost from the ground up. Your voices can be heard, if you’re willing to speak up. While faster releases of minimal content may generate more money for the companies, I’d much rather wait five years and receive something like The Last Of Us: Part Two, rather than something like Overwatch 2. No matter what way I look at this, it seems like Overwatch 2 is a cash grab. Likely the result of a need to improvise in the declining popularity of loot boxes.
“I think the game is absolutely a sequel. It’s a huge game, and I think not only are we trying to do right by our players — current Overwatch fans who aren’t interested in Overwatch 2 — I’m hoping that we’re doing right by players of games that have sequels that have nothing to do with Overwatch. I hope we actually influence the industry a little bit.” ~Jeff Kaplan, Creative Director
What do you think? Is it a cash grab? Or will it earn the “2” in its name? This announcement comes at a pivotal time in Blizzard’s history, and I think our reaction to this will shape the direction that not only Blizzard, but even other companies take with their products. Our stance against loot boxes didn’t come until it was almost too late, and dominated every game on store shelves. Let’s stop this train before it goes somewhere we don’t want it. Jeff Kaplan, Creative Director of the Overwatch team, says that they’re trying to redefine what a sequel is. If this is their definition, I say we shouldn’t let them.
