Yes, Overwatch is a great game, but imo it made the FPS genre (not just the FPS genre, but it especially) much worse. Let me explain:

Overwatch has loot boxes that can be bought with real money. Overwatch sold a lot, and because it has a lot of fans that think it's a sacred game and refuse to consider the loot boxes a problem, publishers now think loot boxes are a-ok with consumers.

Overwatch has no campaign. Overwatch sold a lot, and because it had a lot of fans that think it's a sacred game and refuse to consider the lack of campaign a problem, publishers now think it's a-ok to don't include a campaign in a $60 game if it has a multiplayer mode. That's a more recent one, but with CoD BO4 not having a campaign, we can expect the number of FPSs with single-player content shrinking more and more from now on.

Overwatch also won tons of awards, including Game of the Year (!) on TGA 2016.

Overwatch basically made anti-consumer practices acceptable in the eyes of publishers.

I dont. I like Overwatch.

Except none of those are the selling points or reasons why people play overwatch. "OMG, guys! No campaign mode, and lootboxes! I can't wait!" You also don't have to buy any new characters as DLC, nor the stages, and can earn loot boxes for free, but let's just forget about that to keep your argument from falling apart.

It's not a selling point, but it showed that people would buy a game even if it had loot boxes and didn't have a campaign. You can earn loot boxes for free, but it takes very long to do that. Buying them with real money is so much easier and quicker.

Have you considered that if something something sounds too stupid to be true, you might have misunderstood it? In this case, the person here seems to wish Overwatch failed so it couldn't popularize lootboxes and the lack of campaign. It's not the consumers but the publishers that started liking lootboxes and thinking not having a campaign is viable (at least particially) because of Overwatch. That, I think, is the argument here. In other words, the argument seems to be that without Overwatch, we wouldn't have those two things or at least they'd be smaller.

I didn't say it was the first hugely successful game with microtransactions. I said it was the first hugely successful game with paid loot boxes. Microtransactions are terrible, but loot boxes are even worse for taking advantage of people's natural tendencies to get addicted to gambling.

Please name another multiplayer-only $60 game to be hugely successful before Overwatch.

First of all the PC version is for 40 dollars, not 60.

2nd of all you forget to mention that overwatch has had constantly updated modes, events, maps, characters for free. That is something that traditional multiplayer shooters do not do.

Also not having a campaign isn't "anti consumer", it's a multiplayer game, that is what it wants to be. Deviating resources to making a campaign will hurt the quality of the core game.

And when it comes to the loot boxes they aren't tied to any game system, it's just cosmetics.

Only valid argument is that it should have not cost that much on console.

This ^^^ 

A lot of people would say the same thing about World of Warcraft and all the other MMOs that followed it.

But quite simply WoW was the best at the start and when they changed the game and kept changing and changing it, and then their competitors copied all the bad aspects. Then I can only blame them and not Blizzard. Of course refusing to play either of them is the answer.

So just don't buy or play games with aspects you don't like. Eventually a game worthwhile will come around, in the meantime enjoy the other quality games.

Overwatch still sold 6.36 million on retail for consoles. You can switch "Overwatch" on the title for "Overwatch on consoles" or "Overwatch Game of the Year edition" if you want. My point still stands.

That's a great aspect about Overwatch. Doesn't make it ok to have paid loot boxes and no campaign though.

It's not anti-consumer to not have a campaign. It's anti-consumer to sell a multiplayer-only game for 60 dollars. By the way, do you really think Activision Blizzard, one the largest (if not the largest) publishers in the world doesn't have enough resources to make a campaign without worsening the multiplayer modes?

Still exploiting people's tendencies to get addicted to gambling.