Bungled 'Overwatch 2' launch demonstrates problem of online-only entertainment

Tuesday's launch - er, attempted launch - of "Overwatch 2" is destined to become the crux of every argument against entertainment products that only exist online.

Blizzard Entertainment launched "Overwatch" in 2016 as a team-based first-person shooter that can only be played as an online multiplayer experience. There is no single-player campaign, no offline mode where you fight against computer-controlled opponents. Every game is hosted by a server.

And when it works, which is almost always, it's great - "Overwatch" was a tremendous success across every major gaming platform, spawning a pro "Overwatch" league whose matches aired periodically on ABC and ESPN.

Now comes "Overwatch 2," which, confusingly, is not a sequel, but a free-to-play update to the existing game that tweaks the gameplay and adds a paid "battle pass" system to earn new characters, cosmetics and other in-game swag. Such a system is familiar to players of "Fortnite" and recent incarnations of "Call of Duty."

I'd love to tell you all about my experience with this revamped version of a game I've spent 335 hours playing, but it was not able to find me a server as of my Wednesday morning deadline.

Mike Ybarra, president of Blizzard Entertainment, tweeted Tuesday afternoon that the game's servers were "experiencing a mass DDoS attack" - basically, someone was intentionally and maliciously flooding the game with thousands and thousands of server requests to sabotage its launch day. Its effects were still apparent at 10:45 p.m., when I began the first of 10 futile attempts to log on.

I never had this problem with, say, "GoldenEye 007" on the N64 console. I just needed a cartridge, three friends and four controllers. And if three friends weren't around, I could throw in the cartridge and play the single-player campaign. No WiFi needed, no janky servers, no faceless kids launching insults at you over their microphones.

This is a variation on the problem posed by movies and TV shows existing only on streaming services. I still buy a few Blu-rays a year, mostly older movies that get spiffy new resurrections from The Criterion Collection or Shout Factory, but I give some love to new movies too - "Dune" just plain looks better on a 1080p Blu-ray than it does on HBO Max's 4K stream. (Hey, you can't argue with my eyeballs.)

But you know what I can't own on Blu-ray or DVD? "The Mandalorian." "Loki." The last two seasons of "Stranger Things." And numerous other hugely popular shows that would benefit greatly from a physical release with optimal visuals and a bevy of extras. But they exist only on Disney+ and Netflix. You have to subscribe to those services and pay for an internet connection to watch, and it may be that way forever.

That's the inherent problem of movies, shows and games going online only, and it's a problem we are willing to live with because of convenience. It's not a problem for the studios and networks, who want more of your money while spending less of theirs.

But what happens when Blizzard shuts down the "Overwatch" servers for good? What happens to less-popular titles on HBO Max when the parent company's new owners decide to start deleting them?

Oh wait, that second one already happened.

• Sean Stangland is an assistant news editor who mains Mei.