This issue boils down to the people that paid for it are pissed and those that didn’t but want it are fine with it.
Ultimately, both sides are arguing for their self interest.
As someone who has none of these portraits and legit doesn’t care, I think it’s crap that blizzard resurrects these things for resale.
It undermines their own interests by cheapening what they created as exclusive. Further, it makes me 100% disinterested in spending a dime on cosmetics, knowing they will eventually show up later for free.
The adage is that one can fleece a sheep for years but you can only skin it once. Blizzard seems to be in the skinning phase of their monetization.
Unique one of a kind nft portraits for 100$ a piece. Generated en masse with AI.
Lets go.
Blizzard should say though if an “exclusive” portrait could potentially be sold in the future again. If not it would be false advertising and maybe you can get your money back.
Except the word "exclusive’’ is not included in the advertising. Its a “mega bundle” part of the bundle like packs and legendaries are sold separately as well and have always been.
I wish I had taken a screenshot shot now, but didn’t anticipate the potential reselling of portraits (Overwatch says “hello”).
I think the implication was clearly that to acquire this portrait (and corresponding cardback) one needed to purchase the mega bundle. I should have been more careful in making sure that certain terms were used (“exclusive”) than any implied exclusivity that wouldn’t hold up in court. My memory is that the word “exclusive” was used, but memory is fallible (namely when motivated by desire (I want this skin to be exclusive)).
Anyway, bigger fish to fry and all that, so moving on. Thank you all for the interesting conversation, either way.
Edit: Still nagging me a bit. Awaiting clarity from Reddit. Let’s see where this goes.
Opening a window for a short period of time to sell an old portrait for $10 or 1500 gold seems fair. It’s not like they are just giving old hero portaits away.
Thank you for asking. I feel like I should not be surprised that Blizzard sold out. I should have been aware that when I bought that bundle that the cherry on top would be used to make some cash grab down the road. On the other hand, I am happy to see some players that wanted this portrait finally have it. In fact, I had just run into a warlock with this portrait, that in fact emoted. It put a smile on my face because I knew they were happy.
It appears that the original poster made an error in recalling the details of a card and portrait in Hearthstone, which they believed to be exclusive but later found out were not. While the poster claims to be calm, their words seem to be laced with a sense of cynicism and logical fallacies.
Firstly, the concept of “whataboutism” has little relevance to the issue at hand, which is whether it is ethical for a company to go back on their promise of exclusivity for a certain item. Additionally, the logic that “one wrongness doesn’t justify further wrongness” is irrelevant, as it is not clear what additional wrongness is being proposed here.
The mention of a class action lawsuit also seems exaggerated and far-fetched. While it is possible for a lawsuit to arise from a situation like this, the probability of it actually happening is quite low.
Moreover, the poster’s argument against the potential sale of N’Zoth in the Hearthstone shop seems to be based on personal attachment to the portrait, rather than sound business practices. It is not necessarily bad business for a company to release previously exclusive items for sale, as it can generate more revenue and provide more opportunities for players to obtain the item they want.
Overall, the poster’s argument seems to be based on emotional attachment and logical fallacies rather than a sound understanding of business practices and ethical considerations.
I look like I was drunk in that comment, but indeed I did. I made a topic actually letting folks know this portrait is now for sale. The multitudes cry out!