This forum is full of cheap people

General Discussion
Prev 1 5 6 7 Next
04/20/2017 02:59 PMPosted by BeastMermaid
"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.


Or you know, I support Blizzard in some things that you don't, because I'm under no obligation to be outraged on your behalf. What bothers you doesn't bother me. I don't tell you you have to spend money on microtransactions if you don't want to, you don't get me to not spend my money on them if that's what I want to do.

I would rather spend money at my will than be forced to pay a subscription or expacs. Although if they're going expacs on top of micros, then I will no longer support micros and probably not the game entirely.
04/20/2017 03:02 PMPosted by JAG
04/20/2017 02:51 PMPosted by Squiddling
...

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.


"Trying not to hurt people isn't a personal responsibility, it's on everybody else to prevent other people from being hurt."

That's dumb and morally bankrupt.
04/20/2017 03:05 PMPosted by Squiddling
04/20/2017 03:02 PMPosted by JAG
...

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.


"Trying not to hurt people isn't a personal responsibility, it's on everybody else to prevent other people from being hurt."

That's dumb and morally bankrupt.


Then start a business, tell a venture capitalist/investors you're only going for X amount of profit a year, and see how much interest you drum up.

Businesses are not moral entities. Why do you think being a CEO is a profession with close to the highest percentage of psychopathy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace#Careers_with_highest_proportion_of_psychopaths
04/20/2017 03:02 PMPosted by JAG
04/20/2017 02:51 PMPosted by Squiddling
...

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.


Blizzard is far from a monopoly.
04/20/2017 03:20 PMPosted by Dibear
04/20/2017 03:02 PMPosted by JAG
...

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.


Blizzard is far from a monopoly.


I...never said it was?
04/20/2017 03:03 PMPosted by JAG
04/20/2017 02:59 PMPosted by BeastMermaid
"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.


Or you know, I support Blizzard in some things that you don't, because I'm under no obligation to be outraged on your behalf. What bothers you doesn't bother me. I don't tell you you have to spend money on microtransactions if you don't want to, you don't get me to not spend my money on them if that's what I want to do.

I would rather spend money at my will than be forced to pay a subscription or expacs. Although if they're going expacs on top of micros, then I will no longer support micros and probably not the game entirely.


What are you even on about? No one is forcing you to do anything.
04/20/2017 03:21 PMPosted by LateForTea
04/20/2017 03:03 PMPosted by JAG
...

Or you know, I support Blizzard in some things that you don't, because I'm under no obligation to be outraged on your behalf. What bothers you doesn't bother me. I don't tell you you have to spend money on microtransactions if you don't want to, you don't get me to not spend my money on them if that's what I want to do.

I would rather spend money at my will than be forced to pay a subscription or expacs. Although if they're going expacs on top of micros, then I will no longer support micros and probably not the game entirely.


What are you even on about? No one is forcing you to do anything.


Generalizations are running rampant today.

"People who don't buy micros are cheap!"
"People who do buy micros are suckers!"
"People who don't agree with me are shills/poors!"

I'm sick of people telling me what I should feel outraged or not outraged about. I open loot boxes for the same stupid fun as a scratch ticket. I expect nothing. I do it maybe three times a year. I know what I'm doing. I don't feel scammed no matter how much other people tell me I should. And I can honestly disagree with someone who doesn't like the gatcha system and not be a shill for Blizzard.
JAG sure is quick to answer to every single post in every single thread regarding this issue.

They REALLY must want to justify those microtransactions.

For someone who claims they don't care about Blizzard, you sure go out of your way to valiantly defend them.
04/20/2017 03:24 PMPosted by BeastMermaid
JAG sure is quick to answer to every single post in every single thread regarding this issue.

They REALLY must want to justify those microtransactions.

For someone who claims they don't care about Blizzard, you sure go out of your way to valiantly defend them.


I answer direct replies to me. Am I supposed to ignore them because you don't want to see my name? There's a button for that.

As for my response to YOU personally, you don't like being generalized, neither do I. I've also said that if they introduced expacs, I would be thoroughly pissed because I paid for a different model.
04/20/2017 02:49 PMPosted by Xenavire
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.


Yet they said themselves all new content for the game will be free? You can optionally purchase loot boxes, but all new maps, heroes, and events come with the $40-$60 you paid when you got the game, unless you bought it when it was on sale. This isn't going to be WoW 2.0, where every major content update is paid DLC.

And I'm pretty sure we're several years away from Overwatch II.
04/20/2017 03:16 PMPosted by JAG
04/20/2017 03:05 PMPosted by Squiddling
...

"Trying not to hurt people isn't a personal responsibility, it's on everybody else to prevent other people from being hurt."

That's dumb and morally bankrupt.


Then start a business, tell a venture capitalist/investors you're only going for X amount of profit a year, and see how much interest you drum up.

Businesses are not moral entities. Why do you think being a CEO is a profession with close to the highest percentage of psychopathy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace#Careers_with_highest_proportion_of_psychopaths


Uh, because businesses were a climate that suited their strengths, they changed that climate to suit them over time, and now the "norm" is thinking that harmful selfishness is an okay norm?

"Moral entities" are in place to stop people who refuse to stop themselves, not as an excuse for people to not stop themselves.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

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.


Yet they said themselves all new content for the game will be free? You can optionally purchase loot boxes, but all new maps, heroes, and events come with the $40-$60 you paid when you got the game, unless you bought it when it was on sale. This isn't going to be WoW 2.0, where every major content update is paid DLC.

And I'm pretty sure we're several years away from Overwatch II.


They also USED to say that "any cosmetics you want" are purchasable with in-game credits (and that WAS the promise, quit the mental gymnastics) until the Summer Games debacle where that was *suddenly* changed.

They also treated the release of Ana like a benevolent gift to the community instead of simply upholding their promise.

Bottom line: As far as what Blizzard "claims" or "promises", I don't trust them any further than I can throw them. If it makes them money, they have shown to change their policies on a whim, which might make them a quick buck now but is absolutely toxic for long-term customer relations.
04/20/2017 03:29 PMPosted by Squiddling
04/20/2017 03:16 PMPosted by JAG
...

Then start a business, tell a venture capitalist/investors you're only going for X amount of profit a year, and see how much interest you drum up.

Businesses are not moral entities. Why do you think being a CEO is a profession with close to the highest percentage of psychopathy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace#Careers_with_highest_proportion_of_psychopaths


Uh, because businesses were a climate that suited their strengths, they changed that climate to suit them over time, and now the "norm" is thinking that harmful selfishness is an okay norm?

"Moral entities" are in place to stop people who refuse to stop themselves, not as an excuse for people to not stop themselves.


That's where the power of the consumer comes in. If a business is exceptionally predatory, they will go out of business due to the power of the consumer. The business is still going to try if they can get away with it if there's profit to be made. That's always been the case since the idea of the corporation became widespread, otherwise you wouldn't have seen the rise of unions and consumer agencies to keep businesses in check. We wouldn't have a 40 hour work week. We wouldn't have weekends.

There has never been a time where a business was an altruistic entity.
04/20/2017 03:24 PMPosted by JAG
04/20/2017 03:21 PMPosted by LateForTea
...

What are you even on about? No one is forcing you to do anything.


Generalizations are running rampant today.

"People who don't buy micros are cheap!"
"People who do buy micros are suckers!"
"People who don't agree with me are shills/poors!"

I'm sick of people telling me what I should feel outraged or not outraged about. I open loot boxes for the same stupid fun as a scratch ticket. I expect nothing. I do it maybe three times a year. I know what I'm doing. I don't feel scammed no matter how much other people tell me I should. And I can honestly disagree with someone who doesn't like the gatcha system and not be a shill for Blizzard.


People are just expressing their opinion and frustrations, it has nothing to do with you. Most certainly people aren't telling you what to do and what not to do. They may think X or Y of what you do or think, but that doesn't mean they are telling you to do what they want.
Sorry, but not everything revolves around you.
04/20/2017 03:33 PMPosted by JAG
04/20/2017 03:29 PMPosted by Squiddling
...

Uh, because businesses were a climate that suited their strengths, they changed that climate to suit them over time, and now the "norm" is thinking that harmful selfishness is an okay norm?

"Moral entities" are in place to stop people who refuse to stop themselves, not as an excuse for people to not stop themselves.


That's where the power of the consumer comes in. If a business is exceptionally predatory, they will go out of business due to the power of the consumer. The business is still going to try if they can get away with it if there's profit to be made. That's always been the case since the idea of the corporation became widespread, otherwise you wouldn't have seen the rise of unions and consumer agencies to keep businesses in check. We wouldn't have a 40 hour work week. We wouldn't have weekends.

There has never been a time where a business was an altruistic entity.


"It's always been like that" is a fact that doesn't really have anything to do with "it being like that is a problem and should be fixed, because it would be an improvement."
04/20/2017 03:31 PMPosted by BeastMermaid
...

Yet they said themselves all new content for the game will be free? You can optionally purchase loot boxes, but all new maps, heroes, and events come with the $40-$60 you paid when you got the game, unless you bought it when it was on sale. This isn't going to be WoW 2.0, where every major content update is paid DLC.

And I'm pretty sure we're several years away from Overwatch II.


They also USED to say that "any cosmetics you want" are purchasable with in-game credits (and that WAS the promise, quit the mental gymnastics) until the Summer Games debacle where that was *suddenly* changed.

They also treated the release of Ana like a benevolent gift to the community instead of simply upholding their promise.

Bottom line: As far as what Blizzard "claims" or "promises", I don't trust them any further than I can throw them. If it makes them money, they have shown to change their policies on a whim, which might make them a quick buck now but is absolutely toxic for long-term customer relations.


Touché on Summer Games cosmetics.

What promise regarding Ana? We all know the community keeps throwing conflicting info at them regarding the state of her balance. You sure you weren't talking about Orisa, when everyone was expecting Doomfist?

And come on, at least they aren't Activision. Oh, wait. Tinfoil hat time: Activision's fault?
<span class="truncated">...</span>

They also USED to say that "any cosmetics you want" are purchasable with in-game credits (and that WAS the promise, quit the mental gymnastics) until the Summer Games debacle where that was *suddenly* changed.

They also treated the release of Ana like a benevolent gift to the community instead of simply upholding their promise.

Bottom line: As far as what Blizzard "claims" or "promises", I don't trust them any further than I can throw them. If it makes them money, they have shown to change their policies on a whim, which might make them a quick buck now but is absolutely toxic for long-term customer relations.


Touché on Summer Games cosmetics.

What promise regarding Ana? We all know the community keeps throwing conflicting info at them regarding the state of her balance. You sure you weren't talking about Orisa, when everyone was expecting Doomfist?

And come on, at least they aren't Activision. Oh, wait. Tinfoil hat time: Activision's fault?


So aroundish the Summer Loot Box PR fiasco, Jeff issued a statement that heavily implies the community should feel grateful that Ana was a free hero and didn't cost credits or money to unlock. I forget what specifically it was, but it was said in a "you should be grateful we're doing what we said" way. It was a pretty boneheaded statement.

Edit: Found it

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20747905428?page=7#post-134

"The event has a ton of *ABSOLUTELY FREE* content available to all players for *FREE*. The idea is play the game and get free, cool, rare stuff for the next 3 weeks. Yes, you can buy loot boxes but you also earn them for free... just by playing. There is a ton of content here that literally no one knew existed until it went live.

Sometimes we want to give everything to everybody. For example, a few weeks ago we gave everyone a new hero -- Ana. Ana came with skins, emotes, sprays, highlight intros etc. that could all be purchased with credits. We also want to add new maps to the game and new stuff like the Lucioball brawl that's available to everyone equally. "


It's easy to ready that as "Hey, Ana was free and all her cosmetics were too," when that was what they originally promised regardless and shouldn't have been a point to justify the Summer Games loot boxes.
04/20/2017 03:27 PMPosted by Blam320

Yet they said themselves all new content for the game will be free? You can optionally purchase loot boxes, but all new maps, heroes, and events come with the $40-$60 you paid when you got the game, unless you bought it when it was on sale. This isn't going to be WoW 2.0, where every major content update is paid DLC.

And I'm pretty sure we're several years away from Overwatch II.


Quite frankly, I don't believe them. At all. It fits their MO to make expansions, people are practically beginning for PvE to be added full time, so that is already a match made in heaven - price it reasonably and laugh all the way to the bank.

Granted, they aren't forced to make an expansion, but I think the spirit of their promise was "we won't sell heroes or maps", while an actual PvE expansion wouldn't technically be either, it would be a mode specifically for people that want it, and would require a totally different team working on it, separate from the PvP/competitive side. Would make sense to sell that fairly cheaply as an expansion for only those that want it.
"Companies are morally !@#$ed anyways" isn't a really good reason for explaining why the consumer needs to be bent over a barrel
OP while agree with some of what you said another part grabbed me.

Do not think this game isn't profitable, or would not be without loot box purchases.

Investors gonna be real happy with this one either way, but with loot box income they like super happy, like the Grinch when he came up with his plan to steal Christmas.

I support Blizz right to sell non game influencing items for exorbitant prices, or just selling the "chance".

i support this because it is something I will never pay into, ever, yet it presumably helps fund future content for a game I am currently addicted to.

Talk about win win right? I keep getting more content for free, most of you guys are happy to pay for it for me, and I thank you all.

The funniest part is these people dont realize the alternative, a COD style game with $20-$30 expansions every two months, paywall locked content, paid balance, etc.

The game gives us everything that matters for free, and everything else for free eventually if you play the game.

it seems so odd to ask for things you could get by playing, presumably just so you dont have to play anymore? LOL.

Its the OCD rush to the finish for some, but when I find something i enjoy I take my sweet, sweet time and enjoy it, I know lots of you only play for fake internet cred but if one day, way in the future, you find yourself playing for fun, I will welcome you to my playground.

Side note: I really want that purple Bsstion skin, i currently have 15 Uprising loot boxes i havent opened yet and 10 regular loot boxes i havent opened yet.

Of the 5-6 Uprising loot boxes i have opened so far I got the mercy medic skin!

Just hope one of the others has the purple one, or one of the ones I "earn" while the event is still live.

But if its not in there I will still keep playing regardless.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum