Again, those aren't selling points.  No, I didn't misunderstand anything, because it blatantly ignores that overwatch has selling points, and things that make it a fun game that people want to play, just to push his agenda.  Even if overwatch wasn't the first.  How long did it take you to finish H1Z1's campaign?  How about Jetpack Joyride?  There's lots of games that don't have an offline campaign,  but I'm not going to search through google to tell you about the ones that came before overwatch.  We all know they exist.

It also ignores that overwatch, like I said, give away stages and characters away as free DLC and is updated and patched regularly.  So if a company looks at one part of overwatches strategy, and only sees the "how can we charge consumers," without the other aspect of why should consumers see value in the practices, then maybe I did consider that it was a silly comment.  And my verdict is that I completely understood it, and it was a silly comment.  People say silly things.  That was one of them.

FIFA is a weird case, though. People always seem to look at it as if it was not a game, but something else. It seems to be on its own ecosystem if that makes sense. I mean, people freaked out about Battlefront 2 doing the exact same thing as FIFA has been doing for years. I guess the FIFA demographic is too different from any other game. Overwatch bring paid loot boxes for the "hardcore gamers" in a way. Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but that's how I feel at least.

MMOs are fundamentally multiplayer-only experiences. "Massively Multiplayer Online", you know? That's because they offer a massive online connected world. Overwatch doesn't offer that. It's a regular FPS on its mechanics and world, just without any campaign.

For Lootboxes...you just don't buy them simple as that, I've put maybe around 60 hours into Overwatch and I haven't bought a single lootbox. The other part is that lootboxes are purely cosmetic stuff, so while I don't like them, they aren't doing any harm to the actual game or gameplay for the rest of the players.

For the campaign aspect...meh, the point of Overwatch is not really the story, is kind of like asking for a story in a non-RPG Mario game, or heck even something similar like Team Fortress 2. And the story is told via character introductions and short animations on youtube, which is honestly kind of cool I most say.

You need to expand your definition of a "massively multiplayer online" game, then.  Overwatch has no reloading, and no weapon pick-ups, meanwhile having healers, and resurrects, and a the characters themselves are just outright better than others, depending on situation.  You can't just always pick torb, sym, or any character, for that matter, and expect them to work well with the team 100% of the time.  It is not a regular basic game, or else it wouldn't have had the footing to be popular in the first place.

 But, all the areas in overwatch are closed off from the rest of the game, which would directly impact the gameplay, but let's just call it a regular FPS on that merit alone. 

People bought Overwatch because it's a great game, no doubt. But publishers looked at its success and thought "Hey, I guess consumers don't care if we do these anti-consumer things then!". Do you understand what I'm saying now or do I have to spell it out for you?

H1Z1 and Jetpack Joyride (are you really mentioning a mobile game?) are not $60.

As I mentioned, Overwatch has many great things about it. They don't excuse it having loot boxes and no campaign though.

I assume OP doesn't want to blame mobile for all the influence it has given AAA publishers, seeing as how they saw the money they weren't making just lying there on the table.

Also, what is with this weird line of logic, where every MP based game has to have a campaign, has to adhere to the SP crowd. I cannot for the life of me find an instance where a SP only player once thought "you know this would go great if it had MP", but instead we get the "it has to adhere to my desires or it should flop.

I will be very blunt for any responses toward that last part; I honestly give not a single damn about whatever excuse that is to be laid before me, that an MP game *has* to have an SP campaign. There is no grounded logic that SP has to dominate and control how the MP side of the industry functions, let alone how it thrives. I like both SP and MP, but in the case of Overwatch not having an SP mode, I couldn't care less, because it's world is brought to life via trailers, bio's, mini movies and official comics. TF2 had this same setup, and Blizzard seems to have taken that page from Valve on how to present it's characters and how to explain them to the user. 

It does excuse it.  If these other companies are looking solely at the lootboxes, they're missing the point.  Those same companies are not giving away free content, and regular updates with their game.  If it weren't for those optional paid lootboxes, that gives no competitive advantage in the game, there would be less content for the game overall, fewer updates.  Do you remember a time when every MMO required a paid subscription, which overwatch also doesn't do?  That's half the reason my consoles don't get touched anymore.

As for the games I mentioned. Overwatch was not 60 dollars.  I've never paid 60 bucks for the game, and I pre-ordered on blizzard's official site.

Why do multiplayer games have to cost less then 60 dollars? Is their some unwritten rule? If you think the game doesn't have enough content fair enough, but the mere fact that it is multiplayer only doesn't mean that it can't cost 60 dollars, 100 dollars or even thousand dollars. It's all about what is the value of the content. 

Regarding loot boxes, again their is nothing wrong with having microtranascations, it doesn't exploit anything just like alcohol and tobacco stores do not exploit the tendencies of people. Human beings are responsible for their own actions. Also how do you expect the game to still get support today, instead of creating post launch DLC and splitting the player base, the game has microtranscations which do not effect the game at all. This is how the PC market operates, and it is great at doing so. Games get support for years even up to decades, and that is supported by optional microtransactions. 

If Blizzard made a campaign for overwatch it would have had to to radically change the development cycle of the game, the amount of content at release, and so much more.

Again their is nothing wrong with a lack of a campaign or with loot boxes if the core game is of value and is good. 

They kept paid loot boxes only for their sports games (and mobile games) before Overwatch. It was last year that they started putting loot boxes on everything they saw.

Disclaimer: That doesn't make EA any less shitty and I still hate them.

Madden + FIFA still don't sell nearly as much as CoD in the US. And even then, paid loot boxes aren't exclusive to CoD.

We CAN have multiplayer-only FPS games, we just can't have them at full price! In my opinion, a single-player only FPS can be $60, but a multiplayer-only FPS can't (I guess we'll have to agree on disagree on that point).

CS:GO was always 15 dollars. I don't expect AAA multiplayer-only games to be that cheap, but I think $40 max should be a reasonable price.

And kids do not have credit cards or debit cards which would allow them to buy loot boxes without the consent of their parents, so you can shift the blame to the people who raised them. 

Just because betting has odds doesn't mean that it's different then lootboxes, the odds are regarding the payout and are not representative of the possibility of that happening. Just like you don't get a chart on a slot machine in a casino, you're not going to have a chart in overwatch that tells u the chance of getting a particular skin.