Why overwatch?

So, Blizzard released the first game in 17 years in a new universe and, obviously, in an unfamiliar niche for online team shooters. And with an obvious hint of Team Fortress 2. Why? Let's try to analyze.




Probably for a different company, the question of a new universe would not have been so acute, but playing in a new setting for Blizzard? Yes, and with a powerful competitor in the market in the face of Team Fortress 2, which, at first glance, pulls over the whole mass of players.
')
Let's just drop the assumptions in the style: “They stole Dota 2 from us - let's steal Team Fortress from them”. When the capitalization of your company reaches (approximately) $ 15B, children's grievances can cost too much. It seems to me that Sirius is still involved in business and nothing more. For example, here are the TOP-10 online games of this year in terms of revenue:



Here we see only 5 segments: online shooter, MMORPG, MOVA (or DOTA-like), tank arcade and card game. Given that World of Tanks is too specific, in which segment is there no Blizzard? Yes, these are shooters.

But why compete with Team Fortress 2?

Are they serious? All shooters presented in the list are realistic, they rest on well-developed physics and the correspondence of all game characteristics to real ones (or they strive for this).

So why Team Fortress 2? After all, realistic shooters from the top ten earned $ 1.4B all together? No kidding, cartoon graphics and non-existent physics. Moreover, TF2 is not even in the top ten. Why did Blizzard choose another niche?

Competition

Of course, this is the most obvious answer. Like, there are these realistic shooters (it should be mentioned that Warface and PointBlank also earn good money), like uncut dogs, and TF2 is the only one. But this answer lacks a couple of clarifications:

• All shooters from the top hold the player. All these ranks, not an open weapon, an endless stream of goals that cause the player to return to the game again and again. TF2 also holds the player, but incomparably softer. That is, TF2 players are mobile . Moreover, they are ready to try something new - Team Fortress 2 has been on the market for seven years, I want diversity.
• The first point also suggests the following thought. Competition in the market of realistic shooters acquires signs of "toxic." This, of course, only my assumptions, but such efforts to keep the player can talk about high marketing costs. That is, attracting new players to these games can be very expensive and it is more profitable to keep them by all means. As a result, the operating profit, even taking into account the huge revenue, may be scanty (or not consistent with the philosophy and views of Blizzard). In turn, TF2 is a monopolist in its market, and therefore its costs are lower.

Diversity

Marketing theory tells us that excessive variety can cause a stupor when you, the buyer, are confused in the grief of brands and prices and, as a result, do not buy anything.

Understand what the difference between about 10 realistic shooters, more and wedged into this pile and make a profit, a thankless task. And TF2 is the only one, so it's easier to enter the market.

Monetization

Yes, TF2 was not included in the top by revenue, but - and to whom is it unknown? - enters the top by ARPU :



So, there is not a single shooter above TF2 , this tells us about three things about the future Overwatch market:

• You can limit the marketing budget - the project will be profitable with a relatively small audience, plus an organic (relatively free) increase in the audience gives a big profit. Given the fame of Blizzard, substantial organic growth can be expected.
• The audience is ready to pay. Let me remind you, TF2 players are mobile and are looking for diversity. They also pay $ 4.36.
• The audience is not just ready to pay. She is ready to pay for decorations, things that do not affect the balance (those same hats).

TF2 market position

If you use the BCG matrix , it turns out that TF2 is the Cash Cow. There is no income growth (last year TF2 was in the TOP-10 by revenue, but not in this one), but TF2’s market share is very high. That is, Overwatch enters the market with a deliberately weaker (probably correctly used the expression “aging”) competitor.

Depth

This is just a giant question for realistic shooters. Remember how Crossfire gets out of this situation (mutant attack, zombie attack). Really, what new can give us a realistic shooter? Nothing serious. Fantasy world? Anything, characters become invisible, shoot dragons and fly. Depth, again, is associated with the loyalty and life of the player. And, which time, costs of deduction decrease. The fact of the depth shows the gameplay trailer Overwatch very well, it is very difficult to imagine something similar in the conditional Warface:

Total

What do we get in the general balance? Blizzard is entering a new, non-aggressive market with a paying audience. At the same time, she can demonstrate her best qualities - humor and juicy cartoony graphics. Plus, the core of TF2 players is ready to try a new game in a familiar genre.

But the most interesting thing is whether Blizzard will be aggressive in the market? Perhaps they will crush this soft TF2 ?

So what is the question. If you roughly take the existing TF2 audience for 5 million (5M), and assume that Overwatch will attract the same 5M people, then Blizzard faces a problem. If they hold the player as softly as TF2, then a part of the attracted audience (suppose 3M) will sooner or later try TF2. And Valve will almost double its audience and not pay a cent for it! Naturally, according to Blizzard, this would not be fair.

In such a case, perhaps it is worth trying tougher retention methods? Like realistic shooters? The correct answer is no. Tough retention methods will spawn a marketing war. This means lower profits for both competitors. This also means that the overflow between games will begin to be limited. Suppose that under “soft” conditions, 2M-3M players would spill over from TF2 into Overwatch. And in harsh conditions will flow 1M-2M. With ARPU - $ 4.36, this is a difference of $ 4 360 000. Not very weak.

And if they can come to the right answer? Not. The economy describes such a situation as a prisoner's dilemma . That is, as I said, Blizzard and Valve maximize profits if they are not aggressive in retaining players and allow them to “spill over” from one game to another. Otherwise, they will reach the Nash equilibrium , which we see in the MOBA market for example - the struggle and the gigantic marketing budgets of LoL and Dota 2. So, the prisoner's dilemma does not imply the most profitable solution for those involved, that is, most likely (if Valve gets involved) waiting for a marketing war. But from the point of view of the consumer, I even like it.