Just some comments with regards to Overwatch and just competitive games in general. I agree with Wombat that there can be very little perceived value in a game with only multiplayer component but, in my opinion, that seems to be the case for individuals who look to play a game with a move "on to the next one" mentality. I think the appeal of a solid multiplayer component is to keep you coming back for an interactive experience with opponents who don't have a limited number of scripted processes (AI) long after release and continuously. If it doesn't hook the player then yeah its poor value. If it does, then I think it stands to reason that it could be played for years and can consistently evolve. Games like World of Warcraft, Starcraft, Team Fortress, Halo , CoD, fighting games...etc I think serve as examples of games that provide their value over the long haul. Especially if you love the game's mechanics and would like to try it out in different scenarios with some opponents who may be a step above a whack a mole game. I understand Wombats apprehension about "buying games on promises" but I don't think that the worth of a competitive game is in some of the things that make or break other games.
I may be incorrect in my deduction but Wombat and Ship do not strike me as individuals that really dig cooperative-competitive online video games (not speaking about high scores type arcade games) in general to the point of returning to them consistently for 6 months to a year. Or, at least, nothing has grabbed them enough to do so like an MMO or something. As a result perceived value is quite low. Obviously there's nothing wrong with that if you like/prefer single player games or don't have the time to devote to "getting good" at a multi-player game. Not to bring it back up from the dead but Wombat played a fair share of Destiny which shares a lot of its roots in the MMO space. He seemingly enjoyed the pursuit of loot and shaders but I don't recall if he was thumbs up or thumbs down onto the whole grouping up aspect for certain missions.
I played the Overwatch beta, and personally, found it rather fun. It is definitely built for team play so I can see if someone is playing in random groups and not with friends how it is an immediate turn off especially if lifestyle doesn't allow. Is it worth $40/60? I can't answer that for others but for me I can see myself spending $40 since I typically sit on one online shooter to scratch that niche itch in between 60+hr rpgs or clever platforming games for a long time. I dunno, if a game has cool gameplay mechanics I like to really dig in there and enjoy them. Mass Effect 3 comes to mind. It goes without saying but just in case, value is subjective.
Which brings me to the topic of Uncharted. Lemme start by saying I have NOT played this 4th iteration. Which I tend to get the same vibe of low value due to my perception of it being "style/production values over substance" especially this far into the series. If I got it at a Wombat hack price then that could change. Sure, the games are pretty. Sure, the VA-ing and mo cap is well done. But more times than not I hear "the gameplay is ok" or "melee is blegh" or "shooting...works" or something of the like. I love a story as much as I do a great game play experience but that doesn't mean I am going to slog through some ho hum tedium of un-interactive invisible wall laden, albiet pretty, environments to suffer unsatisfying gun play. I could just watch a movie and save my fingers the effort. I can take the reverse (bad story good gameplay) in this medium but sometimes the other way around is much more difficult. Then again that just speaks volumes to the world and characters that are present in Uncharted that, in spite of these general complaints, it is still favorably received. Naughty Dogs latest titles of Uncharted and The Last of Us are probably just not for me.
Not hating, just putting my thoughts out there. Keep up the work guys and I enjoy what you guys (Cheapy, Wombat, Ship) provide to the gaming community on a daily basis.