Compromise, what if they bring it back, but as a recolor. Maybe a powder blue version? The original stays exclusive, but they keep bringing in donations. More players get to play with that Mercy model.
It especially makes sense since we’re about to add the Switch to the OW ecosystem, and they never had an opportunity to buy that skin.
Or Reaper.
(Yes, it exists as fan art 
)
To be completely honest, people won’t even donate to a charity unless they were getting something back in return and if blizzard shows us that exclusive stuff we get isn’t even exclusive, a lot of people aren’t even going to bother donating because they aren’t getting anything of value from it.
That’s a very shallow way of looking at it
disregarding the skin itself, the event was for charity, by your logic, Blizzard should never touch charities again because of “Exclusivity”
I don’t mind if it came back, BUT only if another charity event was held (lung, prostate, liver cancers, etc.)
Maybe a McCree-themed lung cancer drive…
Oh yeah! I’ve seen that hahahahaha!
Wouldn’t mind to see a picture of Mercy slapping the cigar out of McCree’s hand - “You know smoking is bad for your health!”
Mercy can cure his lung cancer! He’s counting on it!
The Spark skin on Reaper looks really cool… if you want to spend the tokens / cash…
I can just see it now. Vaping McCree skin
He chain-smokes cigars.
If anything it would be rather unethical to bring back something they sold as a limited time exclusive in order to drive up sales, even if the proceedings went to charity.
It would kind of hurt their credibility and people would be less prone to buy similar type of items in the future if they knew “they will be back at some point anyways so meh”, I mean, they raised almost 13 million USD to the BCRF on that campaign and much of that has to do with people buiyng the product under the assumption it being a one-time thing.
That being said, it wouldn’t be unethical to release a new and different Mercy skin for some charity, or the same one. But if they ever release that type of pink skin again it would make more sense to do it for another character.
Pfft. No, by my logic, pink mercy is never coming back even if breast cancer charity does, and guess what, Pink Mercy is never coming back. Don’t try to twist what i said like that.
Well it is a poor point to argue what would be unethical here. You can argue it is unethical to offer something on a reoccurring schedule that people thought would be a one-time exclusive. You can also argue it is unethical to not use already spent resources to raise more money for a charity. Considering it costs nothing in further development time, it is rather cold to not raise that money simply to appease those who value something based in it being denied to others.
I would personally love to see this mentality worked out of gamers, this idea that something is good because “I have, you don’t.” It is akin to only wanting to play with a toy if your friend doesn’t have it, a mentality that sharing it or that someone else having one too will make the toy boring. I know it is a mentality you can’t just work out of people, but it would be nice if companies didn’t encourage it. Especially because I don’t think it makes financial sense.
A reoccurring event skin is going to make more money than a one-time skin. If you are going to argue the monetary angle, there just isn’t much reason to have exclusive items, and that is probably why so few games will do them anymore, or just relegate them to try and push for pre-order numbers… and that is more of a push to get sales early in hopes of influencing/keeping hype than it is a way of securing launch sales they wouldn’t have gotten from launch-day players already.
Anyway, for a monetary argument you have to look at it in the long term. Even if you assume a high number like 25% of people who won’t buy a non-exclusive, you are securing that number at the cost of the sales on following years. It probably made sense to them if they didn’t know for sure they’d be running a charity like that annually (a good assumption since they haven’t) and if they viewed the development cost as sunk since all proceeds would be charity, but it is a lot harder to justify exclusives in any other situation.
Personally, I hate that justification as I think having a plan to run a charity like this annually is a good goal to have.
The exclusivity reason is stupid but I’m not against a recolor either 
but I think if they sold dye so we could chose the color for whatever skin we want would be much better
No, it’s not really a poor argument. It’s actually a very valid one even though you don’t agree with it.
Another valid reason is that this skin was made as part of a charity event and there are very specific requriements to be met when a business sells a service or product with the purpose of donating that revenue to a charity as I’m sure they probably were able to write-off some taxes on those 13 million USD they donated.
As the original campaign was about an exclusive offer for donating to a very specific charity between set dates I’m not even sure they could for legal reasons release the exact same skin as that could be seen as rather deceptive and you don’t want to be deceptive towards the IRS as that’s tax fraud, which is serious business mkay.
And like I already explained in the previous post it makes no sense to release the same skin labeled as an exclusive twice as the people who already donated are rather unlikely to donate again for the same offer and since they did net close to 13 mil USD they sold quite a few skins. Now at the same times those who were willing to donate the first time around are the most likely ones those donate again if offered something new so from a marketing perspective it makes zero sense not making potential upcoming charities appeal to this group the most.
Considering the absolutely horrendous numbers of cancer victims every year, I’m sure there’d be many whistleblowers in this conspiracy.
Well feel free to elaborate.
None of this is legally binding. Mainly because “exclusive” only means that it is temporarily available or available with limited quantities or with specific retailers, etc. It is anything with some restriction on distribution separate from the other products. Technically a Christmas skin is an exclusive. As would be any skin like this returning to availability if offered during specific periods of time or through specific sources.
The only legal recourse you might have is if you were a company promised exclusive distribution rights and the publisher broke that to offer your ‘sales promotion’ to another retailer, and that is only because you have a contract to back you up.
Considering they actively advertised it as a never coming back skin, it would in fact be illegal for them to bring it back since, yanno, false advertising is in fact against the law and since money was exchanged on that premise there would be a legal case for those that have the skin and bought it for that reason.