So the WoW collab doesn't have an event?

160€ skin bundle? But wait it just came out and it’s already on sale ! Only 60€ for a collab between two games of the same company.

So it’s just “Here are some skins, you already saw most of them in a previous battle pass ? Don’t remember just buy a reskin. Also no event, no missions, no nothing just skin”. That’s not a collab.

The reward for the challenges is a weapon charm. I’m gonna play 100 games total, most with heroes I don’t want to play with because it’s specifically tank OR dps OR flew queue, but it’s always tank anyway.

Can’t the Overwatch team make something they can be proud of sometimes?

2 Likes

Were you really expecting any form of game mode?

Only thing I thought that might do would be to tart up Blizzard World. But I’ve not seen anything about that so don’t think it’s happened.

They are proud of what they make. PvE content gets such low play rates they’ve probably been told it isn’t worth their time atm.

PvE content gets such low play rates they’ve probably been told it isn’t worth their time atm.

You mean, they asked for ressources they couldn’t get, to be told it costs too much so they did some cut, and then “hey you don’t really progress just cancel that it takes too long”. Also what PvE contents? We don’t even get to play archive missions.

1 Like

When they are available, barely anyone actually plays them. The sad truth is, OW isn’t destined for PvE. People just want to play QP or Ranked. Then there’s the small pocket of players that do other things, PvE isn’t what people play OW for.

They’d be better off licencing it out to some studio for a series to get the lore out there. Then they can focus on buffing Orissa unnecessarily this week, to nerf her soon, and then buff her again when people complain about another tank. The OW life cycle.

Because we have had the same event for 5 years now. People want new content, I don’t want to play Junkenstein mission for the millionth time.

1 Like

True. But not many people wanted to play it first time round.

Got any source on that? Again you’re furthering my point. The first PvE missions were fun, then it got repetitive to play the same game modes every year.

1 Like

The game is all the proof you need.

It’s live service. They’ll be pandering to what people play. If no one’s playing lucio ball, it doesn’t come back. If no one’s playing PvE modes, they won’t make more.

I completely agree with you. But this was their biggest flaw. Little to no replayability. Bit like the old experimental mode. People played it once, maybe a couple of times at a push, then moved back to their normal mode of choice.

If the PVE modes they release are poorly designed, then obviously people won’t be playing it. It’s only logical. Especially after what they promised us got canned.

2 Likes

Were they poorly designed though?

Limited, yes.
Unengaging story, yes

But for what they were they were ok in design terms.

You literally proved me right.

Limited and unengaging = bad design.

2 Likes

Or simple design.

Simple isn’t always bad.

Plus I clearly said unengaging on the story side. So let’s not make things up.

I’m not making things up. I think you might be a bit confused.

You literally proved me right with these two sentences.

When something is designed as being limited and unengaging, that’s bad design, especially when it is based on the PVE we were promised.

It was rushed and poorly designed in every single way.

Simple design isn’t always bad, but rushed, poorly thought through and poorly implemented design is.

1 Like

No confusion. Definitely said unengaging story.

Or it is ok design within he limitations they had.

And, as above, unengaging story. That’s writing not design.

Limitations the team had is not the same as delivering a limited/restricted and poorly implemented product.

Lots of solo devs have limitations, yet manage to deliver far more.

Keep the excuses coming. I’m already eating well.

1 Like

Indeed.

But pve was limited by what the engine could do. There was only so much the Devs could do.

No it wasn’t. You should really stop making things up.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the engine. The engine is designed to support what we were promised in terms of PVE content, which is a far cry from that hot mess we got served.

The limitations were resources because that’s the reason they couldn’t finish the PVE content they promised us.

However, when it comes to other limitations post launch, it’s mainly the lack of talented people, since they fired their entire PVE team, not to mention they just used what they had already made and tweaked it to make it useable enough to charge money for it.

2 Likes

Legit.

OW (the original OG game) could even do the PVE content that they produced. No where did Blizzard say that it was down to the engine. PVE was terrible for what they managed to produce over all these years, so they abandoned it - lied to the community.

3 Likes

They actually said so in a dev update (5th November 2019 to be precise). The changes they made to the engine allowed them to do more expansive PvE. Which we did see early on.

Literally yes.

The trailer advertised nothing about a new mode or anything. So there is no reason to be dissapointed. They literally gave us what they said they would. And with them laying off a load of people they probably wouldnt even have the worforce to make a new mode even if they wanted to.