Overwatch 2 was a big mistake - Overwatch creator explains | Jeff Kaplan and Lex Fridman
Jeff Kaplan discusses how Overwatch 2's development derailed due to competing pressures from internal dev team desires for PvE content, executive demands for specific release dates, and massive financial commitments to Overwatch League that consumed resources. He ultimately left Blizzard after being pressured by the CFO to generate specific recurring revenue targets, leading him to question how creative game development gets compromised by financial ambitions.
Summary
Jeff Kaplan explains that Overwatch 2 was initially conceived in 2015 as a cooperative PvE shooter experience, before Overwatch 1 even shipped in 2016. The project had two sources of genuine pressure: first, team members who loved the Overwatch universe but wanted to experience it in a PvE setting rather than competitive PvP; second, executive pressure to meet release dates that were carelessly included in early PowerPoint presentations to corporate leadership.
During Overwatch 1's massive success in 2016-2017, the team experimented with live events like the Summer Games and Halloween events, which were extremely popular with fans. However, this momentum and ability to "ride the wave" was disrupted by two major factors. The internal coalition pushed for Overwatch 2 development instead of continuing live events, and more significantly, Overwatch League became a massive distraction. While OWL's original intent was noble—establishing regional teams with player protections and minimum salaries to professionalize esports—it was oversold to billionaire investors with unrealistic projections (comparing it to NFL revenue potential).
This financial commitment to OWL created cascading problems. Teams invested in the league demanded returns, requiring massive in-game integrations (Twitch streaming features, team skins, technical implementations) that consumed development resources. The business model of in-person events and merchandise fell apart quickly, forcing everyone to default to extracting maximum monetization from the live game itself. This created relentless pressure on the Overwatch team to generate revenue, pulling resources away from both live service care and Overwatch 2 development.
The breaking point came when Kaplan was called into the CFO's office and given an ultimatum: Overwatch must generate a specific recurring revenue target annually, or "a thousand people" would be laid off and "that's gonna be on you." This moment crystallized for Kaplan how creative game development had been subordinated to financial targets. He reflects that classic Blizzard successes like World of Warcraft were created by small creative teams without CFOs dictating outcomes, and that bringing financial pressure into creative work fundamentally breaks the process. He ultimately resigned, experiencing significant grief over leaving the company he had planned to retire from.
Key Insights
- Kaplan identifies placing casual PowerPoint dates in front of corporate executives as a critical failure point, saying executives treat presentation slides 'like you might as well etch it in stone and come down from the mountain on it,' creating artificial deadlines that drive flawed long-term decisions
- Kaplan argues that Overwatch 1's massive wave of success in 2016-2017 required riding it with more live events, but pressure to begin Overwatch 2 development meant the team ignored the fundamental principle that 'most games fall off the back of the wave' and squandered a rare opportunity
- Overwatch League's downfall stemmed from over-marketing the league to investors with unsustainable promises (comparing potential revenue to the NFL), creating a 'house of cards waiting to fall' when actual in-person event and merchandise revenue couldn't meet those projections
- Kaplan was ultimatum'd by the CFO with a specific recurring revenue target for Overwatch, with the threat that failing to meet it would result in laying off a thousand employees with responsibility placed on Kaplan, which he describes as 'the biggest fuck you moment' in his career
- Kaplan contrasts classic Blizzard successes like World of Warcraft—created by small creative teams of 'weirdos' without CFO involvement—to the financial-machine approach that destroyed Overwatch's trajectory, arguing creative leadership must run creative projects or the work becomes corrupted
Topics
Transcript
[0:02] - So even though you were not thinking about it Overwatch ended up being a gigantic success. So did you start thinking about, in this framework of crawl, walk, run, about the walk, the PvE piece? - Yes. So the PvE piece was what Overwatch 2 was supposed to be. And I don't know if people know this or not, but we [0:33] started working on Overwatch 2 in 2015. - ♪ Over- ♪ - So, Overwatch 1 didn't ship until 2016. So before Overwatch... And it wasn't like work in earnest. It was like pitching the game. Um, I remember I spent a lot of time... It was myself, Chris Metzen, and Michael Chu sort of brainstorming a…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Lex Clips
How Sigmund Freud revolutionized psychiatry | Andrew Scull and Lex Fridman
Andrew Scull discusses how Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis emerged in late 19th-century America alongside religious healing movements, eventually gaining popularity among intellectuals and artists in the 1920s, despite mainstream psychiatry's resistance to talk therapy as treatment for mental illness.
Do antipsychotic drugs work? | Andrew Scull and Lex Fridman
Andrew Scull discusses the efficacy and serious side effects of antipsychotic drugs, explaining that while they help some patients, many are non-responders, and the medications carry substantial risks including tardive dyskinesia, weight gain, metabolic syndrome, and cognitive dulling. The landmark CATIE study revealed that newer, expensive second-generation antipsychotics are no more effective than older first-generation drugs, with 67-82% of patients dropping out due to inefficacy or intolerable side effects.
Surprising origin of antipsychotic drugs | Andrew Scull and Lex Fridman
Andrew Scull explains how chlorpromazine, an antihistamine synthesized in the 1880s, was accidentally discovered to have psychiatric applications in the 1950s through French Navy lieutenant Alain Laborit's experiments. The drug's rapid adoption was driven by pharmaceutical companies' aggressive marketing to politicians and hospital administrators rather than by psychiatrists' initial enthusiasm, transforming it from a 'major tranquilizer' into the first 'antipsychotic' drug.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) vs Psychoanalysis | Andrew Scull and Lex Fridman
Andrew Scull discusses how clinical psychology and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) emerged after WWII as alternatives to psychoanalysis, becoming dominant through better empirical evidence, shorter treatment duration, and federal funding advantages. CBT's symptom-focused approach proved more measurable and reproducible than psychoanalytic theory, though its effectiveness remains limited for serious mental disorders.
Do anti-depressant drugs work? | Andrew Scull and Lex Fridman
Andrew Scull discusses the history and efficacy of antidepressants, particularly SSRIs like Prozac, explaining that while they statistically outperform placebo, the clinical improvement is often marginal and comes with significant side effects including sexual dysfunction and withdrawal difficulties. He also addresses 'diagnostic creep' in psychiatry, where conditions become increasingly broadly defined and diagnosed over time.