Is any multiplayer only game actually worth the full price of $60? Just think about what you are getting -- then compare that to other games at the same price point, which have way more content. Shocking, right?
Overwatch is a multiplayer-only game with no story mode, no adventure, and no campaign. So why is it priced exactly the same as many other games that have so much more to offer than it does? Is it purely because it's a AAA title? Or is it because it was developed by Blizzard?
When you plop down the $60 for Overwatch, what you're really buying is its roster of heroes, access to multiplayer servers, and a few game modes. That's pretty much it aside from a few cosmetic goodies. And the unfortunate part is that the game modes aren't really that good -- completing the same objective over and over again every single day simply gets tiresome and very repetitive, which could potentially drain a portion of the fun.
On top of all that, you're expected to swallow microtransactions in spite of the money you already paid for the "full" game! The "loot boxes" that you're supposed to buy into have nothing useful or helpful in them -- and though they're obviously optional, all the hype around the cosmetic items makes them look much more lucrative than they should.
If Overwatch was around $30-$40, then that price would definitely be justifiable. For the full price of $60, you're simply not getting your money's worth, no matter how you choose to look at it. And for whatever possible reason, it's $40 dollars on PC -- which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, when it's the exact same game as the console version.
It's also worth mentioning here that most other games in the arena shooter genre (and its sister genre, the MOBA) are free-to-play and have you spend money on cosmetic items and hero unlocks rather than paying outright for the base game. (Paladins is a great example here.)