Yeah, fair point. those are people we should look out for.
the hair is so cute wym? 
1 Like
Disagreeing with magadodo constitutes a personal attack, it is known.
5 Likes
as a clarification, it is an attack
not at all
there arent a billion posts in total on this forum over its entire multi year existence
not even close
not at all
I know of a forum member who has started perhaps a half dozen of them. but that wouldnt be even close to a majority of all Pink Mercy posts
One can choose to simply ignore such posts if they arent to one’s liking
One can even choose to make them permanently invisible
Perhaps if one isnt actually interested in discussing the topic, one should choose one of these two routes
Both of these are true, of course, and I have never once stated that I am a moderator
Not sure why you’ve chosen to make this statement, tho.
Can we now return to the actual topic?
as a clarification: the items I have noted as containing an attack do in fact contain an attack
lol facts. the most annoying forumer on here tbh. and there are a lot of forumers. so that’s saying plenty 
. genuinely wondering how anyone in their real life can stand to interact with them lmaooo.
1 Like
I ask that the personal attacks cease
and I asked you plenty of times to stop interacting with me, yet you refused 
also, it’s not really a personal attack if what I’m saying is the TRUTH. sometimes it hurts, but it doesnt make it any less of truth 
a little reality check for you, Dodo bird.
I ask again that the personal attacks cease
And words like ‘shouldn’t’ are controlling words used to shame others into abiding by someone else’s personal rules by setting a standard that doesn’t exist; and as such should be examined closely by anyone purporting to want a serious conversation.
as I said, the word that was used is an attacking word and has no place in a serious conversation
These threads of pink Mercy seem to always be resurrected and suggested multiple times. It is almost as if you can call it Pink Mercy Mass Ressurection
Seriously, though… can we just get a new charity for a new hero; instead of keep suggesting this same topic, when it is clear and stated that the skin has no chance of returning due to legal reasons.
actually, thats not at all what was officially stated
He’s trying to be a forum lawyer or something with his cease and desist messages.
WyomingMyst has came and stated the reasoning on why it is very unlikely for the skin to return in a thread. The skin itself is sponsored by BCAF organization, meaning legally Blizzard would have to get permission in doing if not then legal action can and will be taken.
Not to mention the negative legal circumstance that Blizzard had in the past, just makes the organization very unlikely to be sponsored by a company that received a bad reputation and criticism for the company actions.
I get people to want the skin, and I personally do not care if the skin makes a return or not, but with how OW2 is set up, legally their hands are tied in this situation and not to mention if it were to return the price of it would be merely OVERPRICE or locked behind a bundle.
I would hate for them to release a water-down version of the Pink Mercy skin just to please those who missed the opportunity to obtain the skin for any reason (legit and non-legit reasons)
Why go through all those hoops, when Blizzard can sponsor with another organization to do a charity and create a NEW skin for a New hero?
I say this as a joke, but it is true, the chance of Pink Mercy to make a return is almost equivalent in Mercy’s Mass Ressurection making a return.
3 Likes
I recall WM saying something along these lines, but no one has ever to my knowledge provided any proof whatsoever of who has power - including but not limited to veto power - in this matter
It makes sense that BCRF might have some say in this matter, but again, no proof of this has even been presented
If I assume for the sake of argument that BCRF’s assent is required - to me, this just raises the price for BCRFs assent
The could given said assumption demand more than merely 100% of the proceeds, for example.
Both Blizzard and BCRF know that Blizzard needs the PR boost badly…far more badly than when they made the original offer. The higher the need, the higher the price
Well first, Blizard seems to have backed off on bundles hard in the last few days. There is an official announcement in a forum post
Second, they’d have no reason whatsoever to overprice it, as the goal would be to obtain as many dollars in donations as possible. Overpricing would not allow this to occur
I don’t see them watering down the product…that’d take extra effort and would make the product less valuable. Instead, it’d make sense to offer the same exact product…no watering down whatsoever
Because said skin doesnt exist at this time and would require Blizzard to divert dev resources from the unfinished and unstable product known as OW2. I dont see them doing any such thing at the moment. Pink Mercy is good to go.
I get that a lot of people see this as unlikely
I simply disagree
aside: Thank you for remaining civil throughout this conversation so far. It is greatly appreciated
Wow. Just wow, that is…that is something. I’m quite speechless.
2 Likes
The proof literally exists as we speak. It been years and the skin has yet to make a return. That is all the proof that is needed, https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/u/WyomingMyst-1633 is one of power, as he is literally the bridge between us, the community, to the devs. Greatly appreciate his communication and the work that he has done thus far.
Again, why jump through all those hoops and obstacles when Blizzard can partner with another organization with fewer complications at a more less offer.
We only witness them backed off on the bundles one time, and even then some the bundles’ prices are still fairly overpriced (my opinion) However, you have answered your own question here (BELOW)
The answer would literally be what you just stated, therefore contradicting what was being said.
and
By nature on a business level, it is smart to make cosmetics cheaper to sell more, rather than making cosmetics more expensive and selling less
$5.00 Epic $10.00 Legendary and $15.00 Mythic cosmetics will sell more than having bundles and individual starting prices be $20.00 + and above.
Oh, but they will have to legally if the BCRF does not approve of them selling the skin again. Water-down in this situation means, the devs would have to change the whole design, effects, etc. to avoid legal actions.
Not saying Blizzard would take the lazy/ less effort route, but based on the track history, it is that saying, why work harder when you can work smarter?
In terms of water-down as well, it just means that it is not going give off the same effect/ feeling as it is not the original concept, but a mere copycat concept of the original.
Again, they have to get approval. The skin may be ready to go, but that does not and I repeat that DOES NOT mean Blizzard can just up and release the skin without the approval of the organization.
Also, you have to think about it on a business level, would selling the skin be profitable as they can easily charge nearly $30.00 + for the skin/ bundle, but only those who did not obtain x skin will jump on that deal, the OGs whom have the skin have no reason to purchase the skin aside from just making a donation to the case, in which we can make a donation at any time without the need to have a give to take reward attached to it.
On a business level, the individual that Blizzard is now catering to is a gamer term of any F2P market (whales), in which on a business level Blizzard will sell more if it is a brand new hero with a brand new organization. Plain and simple.
It is not an either or case, it is just again why work harder when you can work smarter? Business is business. Do I agree with the logic, not at all, but business is literally just business.
Just how Mass Res might make a return in OW2. Anything is possible at the expense of logic.
No problem, same to you as well Megadodo. Again we just have to agree to disagree and keep it pushing like an adult.
2 Likes
But that’s categorically not the case. And it’s universally a good idea to not introduce elements of deliberate scarcity into a video game.
No it would not. This is like the people screaming that Blizzard shouldn’t give away the feldrake mount in World of Warcraft because they went and dropped 3500 USD on it.
I’m not familiar with wow stuff. To which charity the feldrake mount is related to? Or how exactly is it comparable to this situation
Everything about this partnership tells us this was always intended to be a one-time and limited event featuring an exclusive skin. It took both parties to make this happen, and both agreed to create a unique first-of-its-kind campaign. For whatever reasons, both teams decided it would be made available for a limited two-week window; they could’ve gone with a larger window, but again they chose a small one. Both also decided to make it one-time when they could’ve announced it as an annual offering. Another point is raising more money, which was part of the calculus. They knew people would miss out and never get Pink Mercy, but this was the intended result. They didn’t have to say, “this was a special one-time offer,” because these choices and the campaign made that clear. They didn’t want an ongoing or annual offering; they wanted a special unique offering, and going on five years tells us that.
I know things can change, but I haven’t seen any reason why they should. Coveting the skin is part of exclusivity, so it is expected and welcomed. People often want what they can’t have.