While Overwatch seems to be the most recent “it” game that has managed to captivate gamers regardless of platform, there’s still quite a few things Blizzard can improve on its first multiplayer first-person game. Yes, we gave Overwatch a perfect 10/10 score in our review, but unless you take everything too literally, that doesn’t mean it’s perfect in any way.
With that in mind, we here at PlayStation LifeStyle decided to list down and tackle everything Blizzard managed to get wrong in Overwatch. Just what are they? Hit the play button to find out in our Everything Wrong With Overwatch video feature!
Agree with our Overwatch complaints or are we just nitpicking? Did we miss anything at all? Share your feedback in the comments below.
Want more original video content from us? Then be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel for more video content you can only find here, and of course, the latest game trailers.
Essential Reading:
- Everything Wrong With Battleborn
- Overwatch, The Witcher 3, Destiny: Games That Keep Us Playing and Why
- Overwatch Beginner’s Guide
Now Loading...Multiplayer Only $60 Games
-
Now Loading...Are You OK With Multiplayer-Only $60 Games?
-
Stephen Bitto
I think that asking $60 for a multiplayer only title is perfectly acceptable UNLESS there is a season pass to go with it. That aggressive pricing model doesn't seem right to me. Now, if they want to charge $40 for the base version and $70 for the complete version which will have content that's rolled out over the course of a year, that's fine with me. But launching a full priced game that is marketed as incomplete shouldn't be the norm.
-
Cameron Teague
I honestly don't see any issue with charging $60 for a multiplayer only game. Just because it doesn't have SP, doesn't mean it didn't take a lot of money to develop and market.
-
Chandler Wood
If the content is there, the game will prove itself and sell for that $60, regardless of it's it is multiplayer centered or not. If not, price will drop in time accordingly. In fact, I would say multiplayer focused games ought to cost more than single player due to the costs of maintaining servers, balancing patches, continued development, etc. People don't realize that games are becoming bigger and bigger in scope and cost, so in all actuality, we're pretty lucky that games are still only $60 new as it is.
-
Zarmena Khan
I'm the last person to buy a multiplayer-only game but I will admit that if we are OK to pay $60 for a single-player only experience, then I don't see why $60 for a multiplayer experience is an issue. I believe it does cost a ton to maintain servers and a continuous online service. But on the other hand, the stigma attached to multiplayer games is owing to the lack of content typically found in these games. A lot of multiplayer-only games have had too little to offer and as a result, they've earned a bit of a bad rep. Let's not forget that playing games online also cost an additional fee in terms of PS+ and Xbox Live subscriptions so the $60 price needs to be justified by the content on offer.
I pay $60 for games in which I don't even touch the multiplayer component. And I know people who buy games to play online and don't touch the campaign at all. The market has always been there for one or the other so this isn't anything new. -
Alex Co
As someone who plays a LOT of multiplayer games, I'm definitely OK with this. Would I want it to be at $40-$45? Yes, I would. But the reality is, publishers and developers need to make money to stay afloat, and it's expensive to make a quality game regardless if it's just a story-driven affair, a multiplayer-only shootfest or a combination of both. Plus, there's servers, client patches and all sorts of post-release stuff that we don't even know of.
There's also the stigma that a game that's "only" priced at $40 isn't a AAA game even if it is, which is something I'm sure publishers want to avoid.
At the end of the day, though. I value a game based on how much fun I have with it, how many hours of enjoyment I squeeze out if rather than if there's a crappy story mode tacked on.
If a game was designed to be a multiplayer-centric title, then devs should be given the freedom to make it the best it can be and not forced to work on a single-player component just to have it as a bulletpoint on the back of the box.
-
Mack Ashworth
When it comes to calculating the value of a game, I usually look at the hours of enjoyment it's brought me.
Multiplayer games, even without a single-player portion, have always given me value for my money, and so I have no problem putting down $60 for a solid multiplayer experience like Overwatch.
