I just can’t read replies like theirs and think they’re coming in good faith. If “just not buying it” was that simple, we wouldn’t even be in this thread, and honestly I think they know that. Really, its more about defending blizzard at all costs even if it means making no sense.
4 Likes
People who say stupid stuff like this are the reason that developers get away with predatory practices like this.
5 Likes
bro you are ridiculous. youve had some dense stances before but youre really trying to act like people are unreasonable for wanting to just pay for a product and own it without all the predatory marketing bs.
You really are simping for Blizz.
Youve gone from saying 13 year olds arent children to claiming that wanting to simply pay for a game and own it is unreasonable.
4 Likes
Fine, it’s a personal decision/valuation though. Cost of production has literally no real application here and many seem to think it does. Wonder how many going on about this religiously think nothing of buying bottled water… 
youre so out of touch you dont even realize people are saying they are willing to pay for the sequel, they just dont want it to be predatory. In what delusional universe is that expecting endless content? Theyre not saying “give us all the new stuff free” theyre saying “stop pushing predatory monetization”
you cant even understand the point people are making youre simping for blizzard so hard.
5 Likes
Oh wait, almost missed this - lets see here… here we go:
No, quite logical thank you.
Show me one. You can’t.
Nope, have no issue with “ownership” in getting a limited use digital asset.
FOMO Fears because Blizz charges a price you don’t like so it’s “predatory”? You sure about that chief?
Nope, very critical on the record of many things they have done. Still are.
In the eyes of the law a person of very young age is generally treated differently from say someone who is 13 or say 17. And it varies by place. So, no to correct you what i said is they are not “children” in the sense of being players under the age for the game. There literally is no universal definition we all agree to. OTOH, people under the age of 13 should not even be playing, so their issues don’t matter. So, 13 up, you are expected to 1) not have much money and 2) learn by trial and error how to value things.
You pay nothing for OW2, so you have no argument on that point. This is all about cosmetics and no, child or not you are not auto-entitled to a price a kid can buy. Sorry, but no. They get free pass to play on, they want more they find the money. Blizz can charge whatever they want. Now, if they lose business, then its a bad financial decision, this is why they will walk the line here, offering some for free, some for low cost, then leverage the people who can pay more to help subsidize the others.
Children should not have much disposable income. You are trying to use the excuse of a “game for kids” to justify exerting your opinion the market. It doesn’t work like that.
you contradicted yourself in the same thread.
You quite literally said that blizz had never done anything predatory in monetization when diablo immortal was banned in other countries for predatory monetization.
Dont lie. ill go get the reciepts.
bro i got the reciepts of you straight up saying 13 isnt a child. dont lie.
2 Likes
I hate microtransactions. So much.
I find the concept that they think a single character skin is worth 1/3-1/2 the price of the full game absolutely asinign. There is no way you can sell a game for 60 dollars(or have other games of similar vein at 60) and competently say “Yeah these skins are just as good.”
Absolutely ridiculous.
A quick reminder that black ops 2 sold camo’s for TWO DOLLARS EACH, and a dlc pack with a weapon, 4 multiplayer maps and a full zombies experience for 15 dollars. God how far weve fallen
Hardly.
Never ever said that. I said to date no egregious monetization has occurred yet with OW2 pricing.
LOL please do.
13 year olds are not “children” by most people’s common use of the term not in the sense of being pre-adolescents or adolescents, who are vulnerable to some extent, or moreso. You want to try to tack this tack on this point which is subjective definitions of children, and feel somehow this makes your greater point correct, be my guest, because it just doesn’t matter to the core discussion:
Blizzard can set their prices anyway they want, it’s their game. “FOMO” nonsense is no issue here.
I don’t buy bottled water unless I have zero other choice, so there’s that.
straight up youre a liar.
what you said was:
yes they are. Youre straight up wrong. People do not concider 13 year olds not to be children.
Saying it a million times wont make it true. The world conciders 13 to be a child.
I am a liar because I do not see pre-13 year olds as children? And I indicated in my thread as such which is consistent. No, I do not see 13-17 year olds as “children” in the typical sense, they know enough to do compex things and express judgment and sometimes poor judgement, and pay the price. I do not believe in sheltering them completely from this. They want to blow their allowance on a $45 skin, by all means do so, but they will learn when they cant go to Starbucks or to the movies with friends if their parents don’t give them another dime.
So far they have no introduced any egregious monetization have they? I do not see any form of committed egregious (by my standards) monetization.
You are desperately trying for a win here, you can’t get one because my position is consistent.
Yeah if I they start pricing everything at prices no one can afford an monetizing every aspect of the game including characters, I will call them out because it impacts play; OTOH, a cosmetic? Nah.
cool the rest of the world does. your opinion doesnt determine what a child is. the law does. Guess what it says about 13 year olds?
well your standards mean nothing. they got banned in china so they definitely had egregious monetization. It was lawfully proven to be predatory.
being consistant on stupid positions doesnt make you right, it just makes you look dense.
2 Likes
LOL no they don’t to make this blanket statement shows gross ignorance. Even in the West the definition of “child” is fluid by period.
Apparently my standards do because they are backed up by law. Blizzard is not fully banned in China btw.
Grow up kid.
Look, I really cannot get why you are so bent over on this question - they have given players a free game with free battle-passes. How much more fair can this be? All this “FOMO FOMO PREDATORY WAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA” bellyaching is over optional cosmetics, nothing more. Really, I cannot believe you cannot think that even a typical 14 year old has absolutely NO backbone to resist marketing on some level…
LMFAO no it isnt. thats straight up a lie.
you are either a child or an adult in the west by the law.
because they redid their monetization for china jesus you are simple.
they have been lawfully proven to be using predatory manipulative habit forming monetization.
youre a schmuck. you are either a blizzard plant or just someone who could be conned and robbed by anyone with a little ambition.
1 Like
just get off the forums, your wife is calling for you
btw you often contradict yourself within the same post, i’d go check if you’re starting to go senile
3 Likes
OMG do you know a thing about history? In the US the definition of “child” varies. OMG… laws on specific things do vary so age is considered differently in different situations.
Blizzard for DI, not OW - we are talking about OW.
But not on OW, what part of this do you not get Val? Really?
Enjoy your probable ban.
Show me my contradiction. You OTOH do nothing but cry here just about every day it seems. Waiting for your response.
i’ve showed you many in other threads, you are not worth the time of finding them all back
btw I wonder now if you have some peculiar tastes because i can’t think of any legislation where the age of consent is below 14
You claim to but you haven’t, show me one. Dare you to try. Otherwise just talk as usual with nothing but gyrations of claims easily refuted. Show me or you are full of it as usual. If you are not to busy with your daily whine posts that is.
Age of consent in the US was below 13 before 1890 in some places, it was raised later in stages. History, Google it.