This forum is full of cheap people

General Discussion
Prev 1 4 5 6 7 Next
04/20/2017 02:11 PMPosted by LateForTea
04/20/2017 02:07 PMPosted by KERAVNOS
You do realize that this isn't a school essay I have to do for my professor right?

This is a discussion you started,and now you are upset because you couldn't win it. You are too immature to admit you have lost, so you resort to childish behavior.

Um I'm not upset because I'm not in it to win anything, I'm simply saying people are cheap. It's my opinion and I'm allowed to have one. Last time I checked, freedom of speech is still a thing.
04/20/2017 02:15 PMPosted by CanonFodder
04/20/2017 02:03 PMPosted by KERAVNOS
...
Yeah sure and you stopped buying them. Lol that's the point, you don't have to buy them. Same thing with investors, they can decide to instead to put money in say battlefield instead.

But that doesn't make me "cheap." That means I want to be smart with my money and not feel like I might as well have just lit a $5 bill on fire.


And I didn't call you cheap... I'm saying people who wants it without working or paying for them is cheap.
04/20/2017 12:23 PMPosted by Red
The 580 dollars gone from my bank account begs to differ


Wow. That's sad.
What... exactly is OP complaining about?
04/20/2017 02:13 PMPosted by KERAVNOS

But you see people are buying them, that's why the game is not shutting down and more contents are being made.


You clearly have no idea how gaming works. Companies survived for literally decades without microtransactions. Overwatch doesn't actually need them to be successful or make new content. And frankly, if they needed an influx of cash, making a full-blown expansion would be a totally viable option, like it was for years.

Just think about how many copies of overwatch have been sold to date. Across all platforms, it's fairly high, I thought it had cleared 10 million at the least - and at 40 bucks a pop (lowballing it) thats a metric !@#$ton of money. Deduct the cost of making the game in the first place, and annual salaries, and you would still be firmly in the green.

If you think Overwatch serious needs it's icing on the cake for it to "not die", you have some real lessons to learn about a game and it's life cycle.

At absolute best, these microtransactions are simply future proofing for Overwatch, making sure they have a nice large buffer before they need to resort to making an expansion.
04/20/2017 02:18 PMPosted by KERAVNOS
04/20/2017 02:15 PMPosted by CanonFodder
...
But that doesn't make me "cheap." That means I want to be smart with my money and not feel like I might as well have just lit a $5 bill on fire.


And I didn't call you cheap... I'm saying people who wants it without working or paying for them is cheap.


I am blessed enough to work for a decent company and have plenty of pocket change to burn. I have bought 200 loot boxes each event, plus I'd say another 200 minimum outside of events.

In $1,000 worth of loot boxes purchased I don't have everything this game has to unlock. Your argument lost all validity. I've spent over $1,000 on this game and still don't have everything. Is my $1,000 cheap? I'll complain every day about the RNG BS system they use, because they are ripping me off with it. Is it going to stop me buying loot boxes? No. I have the money to throw at it. Am I delusional enough to think they money they make on loot boxes is somehow funding their work, the content we get, or making any kind of actual contribution to them? No, I'm not retarded. If they took loot box sales away entirely the game would continue as it has, uninterrupted. Loot box sales don't fund this game, deal with that.
04/20/2017 02:18 PMPosted by KERAVNOS
04/20/2017 02:15 PMPosted by CanonFodder
...
But that doesn't make me "cheap." That means I want to be smart with my money and not feel like I might as well have just lit a $5 bill on fire.


And I didn't call you cheap... I'm saying people who wants it without working or paying for them is cheap.
Except when lootboxes are all luck and RNG, there's no "work" involved
04/20/2017 02:28 PMPosted by Schrodinger
What... exactly is OP complaining about?


You. It's really just another one of those blankets "You are the problem" topics I'm guessing to counter all the other complaints going on.

This has nothing to do with cheapness. I don't like being forced to prove my loyalty to a game by putting in 2 hours per box or shelling out in a limited time period. Even while playing this strategically with saving up prior, you still have the Player Icons which are not purchasable. While myself and others are out of the contest on total completion of cosmetics I imagine there's some who try for it and have to drop an excessive amount for RNG.

They haven't said anything about a second chance to purchase missed items, so the longer this goes the less inclined I'll be to bother especially since they'll take away the PvE once this is all over and I'm left to either salty competitive or carrying silvers VS masters.
It's my opinion and I'm allowed to have one. Last time I checked, freedom of speech is still a thing.


It's been clear throughout this thread that you're a little ... let's call it dim. I'm gonna help you on this one point at least, since snowflakes never seem to get it - this forum is not a country. It's not an independent state or territory.

There IS NO freedom of speech in a forum. You agree to terms and conditions by signing up. You can't say anything, otherwise my assessment of your intelligence would've been much more colorful.

Please. Pass this information on to your snowflake friends, spread the word.
Next they'll say "You should have to pay to play competitive mode".
[quote="207529179352"]

At absolute best, these microtransactions are simply future proofing for Overwatch, making sure they have a nice large buffer before they need to resort to making an expansion.


I pay microtransactions so they never have to do an expac. If they follow a microtransaction AND expac model, then I'm going to be severely pissed.
This game was barebones when it released, it wasn't worth £40- £60 then. It has taken a year to get enough content to justify the £40 but not the £60.
04/20/2017 02:30 PMPosted by Xenavire
04/20/2017 02:13 PMPosted by KERAVNOS

But you see people are buying them, that's why the game is not shutting down and more contents are being made.


You clearly have no idea how gaming works. Companies survived for literally decades without microtransactions. Overwatch doesn't actually need them to be successful or make new content. And frankly, if they needed an influx of cash, making a full-blown expansion would be a totally viable option, like it was for years.

Just think about how many copies of overwatch have been sold to date. Across all platforms, it's fairly high, I thought it had cleared 10 million at the least - and at 40 bucks a pop (lowballing it) thats a metric !@#$ton of money. Deduct the cost of making the game in the first place, and annual salaries, and you would still be firmly in the green.

If you think Overwatch serious needs it's icing on the cake for it to "not die", you have some real lessons to learn about a game and it's life cycle.

At absolute best, these microtransactions are simply future proofing for Overwatch, making sure they have a nice large buffer before they need to resort to making an expansion.


Except Overwatch is closer to TF2 than World of Warcraft or Mario Bros, it's very unlikely to have a paid expansion or sequel because the main content is not the story, but the PvP arena. Eventually, several years down the line, it might get an expansion. But look at TF2. Ten years, and still going; they went F2P years ago and content is provided by people doing the equivalent of buying lootboxes (though the dev. team is down to what, 14 people since nobody actually buys the game anymore?).
1. You don't get rich by spending money.

2. Learn about capitalism, kid.
04/20/2017 12:35 PMPosted by KERAVNOS
i feel like people don't know such thing as economics and business... Did colleges back in like the 80s teach that or did you guys never went to one?


You're assuming people on this forum was alive in the 80s.

I was alive. I have an MBA. I own a business. I understand and agree with your point.

What's sad is how many younger people have NO idea how capitalism and the power of the purse have given them such amazing stuff atinsanely affordable prices these days.
04/20/2017 02:39 PMPosted by Blam320

Except Overwatch is closer to TF2 than World of Warcraft or Mario Bros, it's very unlikely to have a paid expansion or sequel because the main content is not the story, but the PvP arena. Eventually, several years down the line, it might get an expansion. But look at TF2. Ten years, and still going; they went F2P years ago and content is provided by people doing the equivalent of buying lootboxes (though the dev. team is down to what, 14 people since nobody actually buys the game anymore?).


Can you list for me how many popular, buy to play Blizzard games haven't had an expansion since they first started making expansions?

I may not be the biggest fan, but that list is extremely short or totally non-existent. There is no reason for them not to make an expansion eventually, regardless of lootboxes.
04/20/2017 12:57 PMPosted by JAG
04/20/2017 12:54 PMPosted by Karock
Ah what is wrong with the world today illustrated by the OP. People think that companies need to make AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE! instead of just profits.


A company is in business to maximize profit. No company goes into business, makes two million bucks in a year in profit, then sits back and goes "You know what? Good enough. We'll just coast to two million and if we get there early then !@#$ it for the rest of the year."


People with no investment in the non-monetary value of a venture having the most impact on it is pretty unwise, as a widespread system. Everybody competing to squeeze money out of consumers causes economic problems, you know.

Maybe more of them should be only going for a slight profit beyond what's necessary to keep the company afloat, hmm? Or the ones that don't should at least be frowned upon by economists.
Say what you want, but a multi-billion dollar company (who I might add own both WoW and the Call of Duty franchise) putting RNG lootboxes in a B2P game is greedy whichever way you look at it.
You're welcome to buy into their scummy tactics all you want, but don't go around calling the people who see it how it is "cheap".
"We MUST support everything Blizzard tells us, otherwise a Blizzard employee will be dispatched to our basement, take our game away and shoot us in the HEAD!"

--- How I read threads like this,

It baffles me how many people are willing to become slaves to the companies THEY pay.
04/20/2017 02:51 PMPosted by Squiddling
04/20/2017 12:57 PMPosted by JAG
...

A company is in business to maximize profit. No company goes into business, makes two million bucks in a year in profit, then sits back and goes "You know what? Good enough. We'll just coast to two million and if we get there early then !@#$ it for the rest of the year."


People with no investment in the non-monetary value of a venture having the most impact on it is pretty unwise, as a widespread system. Everybody competing to squeeze money out of consumers causes economic problems, you know.

Maybe more of them should be only going for a slight profit beyond what's necessary to keep the company afloat, hmm? Or the ones that don't should at least be frowned upon by economists.


You're assuming that there are only two roles. There aren't.

It's on the government to issue regulations to protect the consumers from monopolies and other unfair business practices.

It's on a business to please its shareholders.

It's on consumers to be educated. Consumers should educate themselves as to what business they want to support AND to ensure that the government maintains its role as a stop on the unchecked growth of business. Consumers should not be relying on businesses to regulate themselves by "only going for slight profit" because it's never going to happen.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum