Blizzard Not Sure "If, When or How" New Overwatch Heroes Will Be Added

Blizzard Not Sure "If, When or How" New Overwatch Heroes Will Be Added

Hanzo from Overwatch

Blizzard is clearly focusing on selling Overwatch as a fixed product, and hasn't begun to think about additional "DLC" heroes.

Blizzard somewhat surprised us at BlizzCon this year by revealing that it's upcoming shooter Overwatch will in fact be sold as a single purchase boxed product, rather than being free-to-play with Heroes of The Storm-style microtransactions as was predicted. However, people are growing concerned that when (or rather, if) new heroes past the 21 launch heroes are added, we'll have to open our wallets again. Well you can rest a little easy, as Game Director Jeff Kaplan has told PC gamer that Overwatch is clearly not going to adopt a Heroes of The Storm payment model.

Responding to accusations that Blizzard has been "dodging" the question of post-launch content, Kaplan stated: "That's very upsetting to me, because dodging to me would be, 'We have a definitive answer and a definitive plan and we just don't want to tell you what it is yet,' and that's absolutely not the case. We're not sure if and when and how we're going to add new heroes to the game at all."

"I think there was a misconception that went around early on-and I'm not sure how this came about-that you would get 21 heroes when the game launched, but there would be a 'hero store' with other heroes for sale at launch also, and that just couldn't be further from the truth," he continued. "There was also a misconception that we would be selling maps, and we've never had any intention of selling maps."

So the definitve answer from Blizzard is "we're not sure", but we at least know that new maps will never be paid downloads, which is good because we've seen how paid DLC maps in online shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield can really split the community.

My prediction is that all new heroes will be released for free, and Blizzard will simply recoup their costs by selling cosmetic skins, a la DoTA 2. However, there is still some cause for concern, as Blizzard is after all the company that brought us $10 animated .jpegs.

Source: PC Gamer

Permalink

Did Blizzard actually correct these misconceptions anywhere though? People may love to come up with theories and spread them as fact, but if Blizzard made no effort to say the theories are wrong then they cannot entirely blame it on the people. It's not like the expectation in this case was an unrealistic one after all.

Steven Bogos:
(Snip).

Typo in the title again.

"We're not sure" is not reassuring considering who's behind this and how no one sane thought that they would try to sell this as a full priced product (without dedicated servers for PC on top of that).

And yet, Mr. Kaplan, you are arguably dodging even in that very statement by only adressing the new heroes issue while utterly ignoring the concerns about paid skins...

I'm not saying I or any of your company's fans have some kind of right to that information. But if you fire up the hype machine for your product well over a year in advance, you really have no excuse to act appaled when people at some point want to know what exactly it is you're marketing to them. Price model included.

Hm. Not liking how they avoid a straight answer. Saying "we're not sure" seems like an easy way to weasel out of criticism if they do end up locking new characters behind paid DLC - but it could just be me being too cynical and they really may not be sure. At least their statement on maps is a bit more definitive.

Considering they're competing with TF2, which had 7 years of development on top of about 6-7 of more years continued support, I severely doubt that Overwatch's classes will be as balanced as TF2's. Meaning that there likely will be more characters to patch roles in teams.

If they decide to go that way.

They will add DLC to Overwatch.

Theyre just not announcing it now/launching with any so they dont end up with the same negative PR that sunk Evolve.

So after the Payday 2 snafu and other DLC/microtransaction issues that popped up recently, some developers are going to try to keep quiet about post-release content plans? That seems a little smarter than saying "we won't ever do MTs" and doing what they said they wouldn't do. Though, it would have been nice if Blizzard gave us clear answers ASAP, rather than letting rumors float around long enough for some to accept them as fact.

Except here is something interesting: "There was also a misconception that we would be selling maps, and we've never had any intention of selling maps." Oooh, they better not sell maps now. Despite not outright saying no, Kaplan just gave hotheaded people online something to use (even if it wasn't a definite statement) in their complaints, if Blizzard ever goes that route with Overwatch.

bliebblob:
And yet, Mr. Kaplan, you are arguably dodging even in that very statement by only adressing the new heroes issue while utterly ignoring the concerns about paid skins...

I'm not saying I or any of your company's fans have some kind of right to that information. But if you fire up the hype machine for your product well over a year in advance, you really have no excuse to act appaled when people at some point want to know what exactly it is you're marketing to them. Price model included.

How is paid skins a concern? They are cosmetics we are talking about here. If people want/have the disposable income to spend on $10 jpegs and whatnot and they don't give them anything more than a new look who are we to criticize. The player is happy. The company is happy. And even the non payers should be happy since they get to enjoy the skins just as much (or in overwatch's case since you won't see your skin in full on action being an fps and all) more than the paying customer. Furthermore he didn't address the real question at all. Maybe we might sell heroes who may or may not be OfreakinP in the future, I can't say, is not addressing anything. And that is the problem since if you wait 6 months and see well you are going to be behind. And if you pay the 40-60 bucks early you risk getting burned into either having to fork out more for the new better heroes or lose your even playing field.

"We could hold future maps/heroes behind a paywall. Crate drops with cash shop keys for skins are on the way."

This is what I just read from the quote. :)

They're not committing to the idea of introducing new heroes or not because the game isn't even out yet.

It's had a beta but we haven't seen any sales data post-launch where additional features may be needed to keep the game fresh.

Team Fortress 2 hasn't added a new class in all its years. But Blizzard doesn't want to be tied down with a statement before the game is even released when it comes to cultivating its future.

A game like this from Activision/Blizzard has to have a projected timeline of content for something like this. He's just dodging the question. He knows the "if, when and how."

I would have given this game a chance had it been free-to-play. I might have even purchased some cosmetic skins for heroes that I liked. But to ask $40 for what is essentially Blizzard TF2? Not going to happen. Hell, Valve didn't even have the audacity to sell TF2 for that much when it was released 8 years ago. It came as part of a package with FOUR OTHER GAMES! Sorry Blizzard. I'm a long-time fan, but you won't get a sale from me.

Abomination:
They're not committing to the idea of introducing new heroes or not because the game isn't even out yet.

It's had a beta but we haven't seen any sales data post-launch where additional features may be needed to keep the game fresh.

Team Fortress 2 hasn't added a new class in all its years. But Blizzard doesn't want to be tied down with a statement before the game is even released when it comes to cultivating its future.

This is how I took it.

The game probably was originally thought of as a F2P game because they're havin a ton of success with those models with Hearthstone and Heroes. However with the whole hero switchin aspect in Overwatch that doesn't really fly well with certain heroes gettin locked out of the game. This necessitated an entire change of thinkin on how the game would even be distributed which probably threw a lot of earlier plans into the trash bin.

Blizzard is notorious for scrappin ideas entirely halfway through if they don't feel they're workin out right. The chances that they really do have no idea what their future plans are isn't remotely beyond the realm of possibility.

Barbas:

Steven Bogos:
(Snip).

Typo in the title again.

Yeah, that happens a lot lately.
Now I wonder how many peeps have "Blizzrd" as their nicks online! Think I saw one before in Diablo II at least ;)

squid5580:

bliebblob:
And yet, Mr. Kaplan, you are arguably dodging even in that very statement by only adressing the new heroes issue while utterly ignoring the concerns about paid skins...

I'm not saying I or any of your company's fans have some kind of right to that information. But if you fire up the hype machine for your product well over a year in advance, you really have no excuse to act appaled when people at some point want to know what exactly it is you're marketing to them. Price model included.

How is paid skins a concern? They are cosmetics we are talking about here. If people want/have the disposable income to spend on $10 jpegs and whatnot and they don't give them anything more than a new look who are we to criticize. The player is happy. The company is happy. And even the non payers should be happy since they get to enjoy the skins just as much (or in overwatch's case since you won't see your skin in full on action being an fps and all) more than the paying customer.

I can't speak for anyone else of course, but to me personally the skins are a concern in that I prefer it if a game's cosmetic elements are unlockables, not microtransactions. Simple as that. I don't think I need to justify that preference to others? I certainly wouldn't demand so from those who are okay with the reverse. Hence why I also didn't argue for nor against the paid skin practice in the first place, but for companies being clear about what it is they're offering.

If - Of Course they will.
When - Every Blizzcon.
How - Promotional codes for attendees. Don't/Can't attend? Bend over and e-Bay.

Well they haven't put the cart ahead of the horse so I suppose thats a good sign, right?

MarsAtlas:
Well they haven't put the cart ahead of the horse so I suppose thats a good sign, right?

Eh, it's Blizzard, I honestly wouldn't be surprised anymore if Overwatch had a good two months of play-time before just dropping back to the bottom of the pile like the last three WoW expansions, Diablo3, and HotS because it has nowhere near the staying power of other games it's competing with(either through TF2/CSGO being better or people just feeling more invested in it) because they entered the running way too late, or just them dumbing down the formula enough that it was more a party game than anything serious because they don't want a hardcore crowd or whatever.

Steven Bogos:
snip

Seems a little presumptuous to say, "Director Jeff Kaplan has told PC gamer that Overwatch is clearly not going to adopt a Heroes of The Storm payment model." when the article and his quote literally says, "We're not sure if and when and how we're going to add new heroes to the game at all." He never said no, why are you trying to spin this?

Sarge034:

Steven Bogos:
snip

Seems a little presumptuous to say, "Director Jeff Kaplan has told PC gamer that Overwatch is clearly not going to adopt a Heroes of The Storm payment model." when the article and his quote literally says, "We're not sure if and when and how we're going to add new heroes to the game at all." He never said no, why are you trying to spin this?

Actually in the PC Gamer article, it states:

Kaplan told us [Overwatch] is "clearly not" going to adopt a Heroes of the Storm-style business model

There isn't a direct quote from him on that, but he did say it, which is why i wrote "Director Jeff Kaplan has told PC gamer" and not used a direct quote

Steven Bogos:
Snip

Ok, now that I realize I had to go else ware for all the context... It does indeed say that, but then I'd ask simply from a journalistic POV why PC Gamer or you didn't call shenanigans, or at least ask how he could rule that out, if the decision hasn't even been made yet? His statements just reek of non-committal PR, an "anti-Evolve" PR plan if you will.

Steven Bogos:
My prediction is that all new heroes will be released for free, and Blizzard will simply recoup their costs by selling cosmetic skins, a la DoTA 2.

You mean like they could have done by having Overwatch be a free-to-play title from the beginning?

Hey-ooohhhhhh! :P

Seriously, I'd be fine with it not being free, but full industry price for a multiplayer-only game is just a pill I can't swallow. But lets be honest here, the only realistic option is to simply sell map and character packs for those that want to buy them while putting out compatibility patches for those who don't have the character packs. Don't have the map packs? Well then they just won't let you join lobbies that are using them. This is, after all, Blizzard we're talking about.

I smell something rotten...

The hype machine has been on for a while, the game has been in development for a while and we are expected to believe a veteran triple A company the size and scope of Activision/Blizzard will develop a title first with no plans or ideas on how it will monetise it...

... yeah right, how daft do these guys think we are.

My guess is that they want to see how it launches initially, if the uptake is strong and it gets a good foothold in the eSports arena (which it is aiming at) it will microtransaction the crap out of it, probably come out with some PR rubbish claiming fans demanded the game go F2P and ActiBliz always listens to their fan wallets... I mean voices, yeah voices.
There is a precedence for my claims too, dont forget TF 2 was a pay to play game at launch and ActiBliz execs may think Valve got away with it...

To be honest I forgot about this game. MP only games are kinda hard for me to get into. I mean I like the style and I like the mechanics, but it doesn't grab me. From what I've heard/read about Battleborn is that it's got co-op/single play (story) and a MP to boot. I'd pay for that, but not for a lackluster MP only that I can almost find anywhere. Online MP only games have their high points, but going alone is almost like playing Horde mode. Playing with randoms or friends doesn't bother me too much. But waiting on others to start a match is bothersome. Might give it a try on console (rental), but buy? Nope.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here