I feel a lot of people in here are a bit revisionistic about their Blizzard memories. For me, this company since the mid 90s has constantly been opportunistic, jumping at every chance of taking other well-received niche games, dumbing them down and adding spectacle and tighter design (which is debatable in the first place).
I mean, first of all, their Warcraft was already a Dune 2 clone that ripped off Warhammer really hard. Same with Starcraft and Warhammer 40k. Even in that situation, praising them for releasing RTSes is kinda bullshit, since we're talking about "strategy" games with absolutely minimal amount of strategic and tactical depth or complexity. Technically speaking, RTSes (especially the kind Blizzard and Westwood made) were the "popamole" of strategy games. We're talking about a time when games like UFO Enemy Unknown, Jagged Alliance, Master of Orion, Master of Magic, Lords of the Realm, Sim City, Civ and so on were made. Strategy games by that point were tackling fortress/castle construction, proper tactics where positioning and unit formation mattered, complex economical micromanagement, dabbling into diplomacy and so on. Compared to Warcraft's "let's see who can click faster and get the best units to the enemy's undefended camp quicker", it was something. Shit, even in the RTS environment there were games that tried to do something more like Total Annihilation or Stronghold or Rise of Nations, but these games and their ambitions were lost in time in exchange for the titillating aspects of the Blizzard games.
Same with Diablo, a dumbed-down roguelike for the masses. The devs that made it (it wasn't built by Blizzard in-house by the way) wanted to make it turn-based, but Blizzard insisted on it being real time.
Same with World of Warcraft and Everquest ...
The Lost Vikings, now that was some really great stuff
So really, what are we talking about? Their recent output falls more or less in the same line with the first things they did. Of course, those games were much more interesting and actually brought new things to the table as well (or were polished and enjoyable enough to not count), but overall Blizzard is still just as opportunistic as they were back then. They had the savviness and the marketing power to dominate whatever new fad was rolling at the moment in PC gaming.
As about Overwatch, I think it looks kinda neat
. I especially like the vertical design of the levels and the ability to travel all over the place by flying/jumping/parkouring. Also, the art design reminds me more of animu than Pixar but that's just me. If the microtransaction stuff is not too bullshit, I might actually play it. Worst case, it would be just as much of a clusterfuck as TF2 is right now, and that's still a very fun game.
You have terrible tastes LS and you're a preachy faggot. No one gave a shit about "e-sports" at that point, Starcraft was a best seller pretty much in the year it was made and the e-sports shit started a few years later, where games like FIFA and Halo were played alongside Starcraft. The popularity of these games were what included them in the e-sport circulation, not the other way around. And The Lost Vikings was good because it was a well-designed puzzle platformer, stop 
about whatever is setting you off.
