>Overwatch may be boring and shallow as an FPS game on account of all of the 'canned skill' abilities eliminating the impact of mechanical skill, but as a strategy game it's good! Just look at how many characters there are, and how many abilities! Surely that leads to good strategy gameplay.
This argument makes sense until you remember that Overwatch is trying to pretend it's an FPS game, not a strategy game. All of the ways in which Overwatch is different from other real time strategy games (the camera, the pace, the lack of resources to fight over) are flaws.
Let's consider Overwatch's strategy merit compared to another the-player-controls-one-unit strategy game like DOTA. Each player has ~3 skills and an ultimate, so there's parity there.
The camera perspective isn't top-down, it's first person. This makes zero sense for a strategy game and inhibits the player's ability to get an overall picture of what's going on. The controls also make it impossible for the player to ever control more than one unit, like they can in DOTA.
There are no map resources to fight over - as a strategy game, the only strategic element is the win condition.
Overwatch is shit as either an FPS game or a strategy game. So it won't sell by its quality.
The only option they have to sell it is manipulative marketing. Here you can see a streamer who was critical of World of Warcraft talk about how he was denied Beta access: youtube.com/watch?v=TqpBhtq6cHE
Here you can see three TF2 YouTube celebrities are flown to Activision-Blizzard's office free of charge, given a full tour, and hundreds of dollars in merchandise + games. youtube.com/watch?v=7omcfb5Ttf0
And remember, straight from the lips of Jeff Kaplan, lead producer for Overwatch:
"Actually, Overwatch wasn't ported to console at some point down the line, we've been focusing mainly on it from day 1."
youtu.be/ohhVVLolLUs?t=280 4:40