Skip to main content

No Single-Player Campaign For Blizzard's Overwatch

Last week during BlizzCon 2014, Activision Blizzard revealed Overwatch, the company's first new franchise in 17 years. The game will be a team-based first-person shooter that anyone can pick up and play, pitting six players against another team of six. Overwatch is scheduled to go into beta sometime in 2015.

Game Director Jeff Kaplan recently spilled a few details about the upcoming shooter, revealing that it will not have a single-player campaign. Why? Because such a campaign may get in the way of the multiplayer component, which is the game's foundation. Each character was not only designed for the multiplayer area, but to work alongside other characters, not on their own.

"I don't think we would ever do a single-player campaign, because the way these characters work... they're cool when you combine them together," explained Kaplan. "Some don't play well alone, either. Unless we built a campaign around supporting somebody else, a support character like Mercy probably wouldn't do well."

Kaplan said there will be a story, and the characters will bring it to life thanks to scripted in-game chatter in each match. As previously reported, players will have twelve to choose from: Reaper, Widowmaker, Winston, Pharah, Torbjorn, Bastion, Mercy, Zenyatta, Tracer, Reinhardt, Hanzo and Symmetra. They each will have their own set of abilities, weapons and armor. However, these won't be the only player characters in the field.

According to Kaplan, the team is hoping to churn out additional characters in the future. He said that Overwatch is an "infinitely expandable universe," but don't expect to see 800 characters on the roster.

"What we're excited about is that there's no shortage of ideas or space to explore that would risk homogenizing any of our current characters," Kaplan said. "We don't have characters that do 'X' versus 'X plus one.' If we ever hit a wall where we felt like we were cannibalizing and homogenizing, we would definitely back off."

He admitted that Blizzard wasn't sure if Overwatch will be free-to-play, and he added that the developer doesn't want players to feel ripped off. What could be possible here is that Blizzard will sell the game and provide multiplayer servers at no additional cost. Or the studio may provide the game for free and allow players to purchase new characters, gear and so on.

The full interview with Blizzard's Jeff Kaplan can be read right here.

Follow Kevin Parrish @exfileme. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

  • ib2007
    Looks like Blizzard acknowledges Overwatch SUX so they make it Free to Play. Just as I said before, I'll PASS.
    Reply
  • dstarr3
    14565897 said:
    Looks like Blizzard acknowledges Overwatch SUX so they make it Free to Play. Just as I said before, I'll PASS.

    I'm not going to say whether or not this game is similar to Team Fortress 2, but it's clear that this game is aimed at the same people that enjoy that. If you're aiming to compete with a popular game, you have to price your game similarly. TF2 is free, which means this being free is a wise decision, as well.

    Let's just hope the free-to-play model is as fair as TF2's. Otherwise this is dead before it gets off the ground.
    Reply
  • zblade
    Looks like Blizzard acknowledges Overwatch SUX so they make it Free to Play. Just as I said before, I'll PASS.

    Maybe you should read the article properly before commenting. It states that "Blizzard wasn't sure if Overwatch will be free-to-play"

    If Overwatch is to be F2P, I hope Blizzard follow the same F2P model as Hearthstone and Leauge of Legends, they will do very well in my opinion. F2P model should always be pay to get to where you want to get, faster. Not pay to get stronger.
    Reply
  • razor512
    Hopefully they avoid free to play. I prefer to simply buy the game and get the best version. free to play generally means that they intentionally make the game less fun, or add elements that they know are not fun in order to sell a way to get around them. The worst ones are when they sell gear that you cannot get for free, or cannot realistically get for free due to far too much grinding needed).

    Free to play, pretty much always means "we are intentionally giving you a worst experience"

    In the case of unlocking gear, it is also bad if he game in competitive, as in many cases, you can be paired with an enemy that had a different gun that is simply suited for the environment better. Some games will match you with people with different equipment that you do not have access to based on some of the weapon specs. the issue is just because a gun may do the same amount of DPS, does not mean that it has the same combat ability. Some games will simply have levels (generally a large number of weapons) which favor a certain type of gun. and if you are in PvP, you end up losing constantly, and pretty much getting burned out from constantly losing, or getting a feeling that your wins are due to luck, or something going wrong for the enemy player, and not you willing because both of you did your best, and you won in a fair fight.

    Free to play simply does not work long term.
    Reply
  • knightmike
    I'm one of those that purchased TF2. I felt a little ripped off when it went F2P.

    I wish games like these had a single-player mode.
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    Ah, Team Blizzard Fortress. Their only "new IP" to not get cancelled in years! I really wish they'd make something truly interesting and grandiose again.
    Reply
  • alidan
    you want to make a game free to play... fine, i'm ok with that
    you want to allow people to pay to advance faster i'm ok with that too
    you want to have people pay for armor customization (cosmedic) i'm 100% behind that

    you want to lock out core functions of the game because people will either buy it or be annoyed, i'm not ok with
    you want to lock an entire weapon/armor type behind pay that is more than cosmetic, im not ok
    you want to make the game a frustratingly long grind because that makes people pay... i am SO not ok with that.

    people confuse pay to win with pay for convenience, i don't have the time to put 100 hours into the game to unlock something, but still want to play it (lets say a character unlock) than put up a play with me now option
    the only time this fails is when the game gets balanced around forcing people to pay to play through an asian level of grinding.
    Reply
  • The3monitors
    Hmm. Yay I guess.
    Reply
  • TheLighterHalf
    I played this at Blizzcon and it was awesome. The mechanics of each character make it very cool and the design made the 13 year old in me nerdgasm. This is like league of legends meets TF2. Interesting new mechanics for each character with small, digestable matches. Keep in mind that Blizzard is very good at mastering a certain genre, like they did with starcraft, warcraft and diablo. I'm very excited to play overwatch again.
    Reply
  • somebodyspecial
    No single player...No purchase. Nuff said. Online is a bonus to me (rarely used), not the main reason I buy any game and if I have to play with kids...
    Reply