|
Post by chodekiller on Feb 26, 2016 4:29:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dewderonomy on Feb 26, 2016 5:14:28 GMT
I'm all for charities. Given their history, this is one of the least slimy things they've done. Making add-ons that go towards a self-less act? That's cool, even if there are ulterior motives surrounding it.
It's the other 2 years of POTs and bullshit house add-ons in a game that was supposed to be 80-90% everything else that's slimy.
|
|
|
Post by fossil on Feb 26, 2016 15:54:45 GMT
This 50/50 split is very reasonable, not really any reason to hate on them. But they have todo different sales constantly... R27 isn't much of an improvement over R26. Combat sound make me laugh
|
|
|
Post by chodekiller on Feb 27, 2016 21:04:58 GMT
Perhaps it is just that every minute spent on creating and pushing this faux charity bullshit is a minute not spent on completing this game that has more and more features being delayed till after launch.
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Feb 28, 2016 2:11:02 GMT
Im telling you they will squeeze every last drop being in perpetual development and only when that dries up will they "release" bare bones game to keep them out of trouble.
Its a blatant asset flip and they are making a shit tin of money on it
|
|
|
Post by chodekiller on Feb 28, 2016 3:46:51 GMT
|
|
dodgy
Strong in the Force
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by dodgy on Feb 28, 2016 4:08:48 GMT
STFU MALAKIE The world does not owe you, its a volunteer service. Dont play the fucking victim Secondly this is a game not a fucking save the world event like Chode mentioned
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Feb 28, 2016 6:13:53 GMT
Should be 100% to charity. This is for money for themselves. Its all virtual items, it has no value. 50% of real money is 100% profit. This is not ethical. At all. And Snell is delusional.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Feb 28, 2016 14:17:22 GMT
Coconut bras. Money.
Let's support prostate cancer by making coconut jockstraps.
Hold in your mind, how those would actually feel against your skin. Lovely.
Maybe a way to make the topic of nearly topless women unbreachable.
Who does this cause typically appeal to? Not so much teens and young adults. Women. Older women. Have you ever attended or watched a breast cancer walkathon? I have attended. It's almost entirely women. That's a good target audience for house decorators. It's all marketing.
However, 50% is more than fair and charitable. Most companies, such as Ben & Jerry's or Paul Newman's Own donate about 10%.
|
|
titsup
Strong in the Force
Posts: 819
|
Post by titsup on Feb 28, 2016 16:04:57 GMT
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Feb 28, 2016 17:13:44 GMT
Good trailer, argyle. I could go into so many things, about how breast cancer is used as a pure money making tool, when they know what can cause cancer. There have been some very toxic ingredients they've removed in deodorant, for example. But so many still remain. The fact it keeps you from sweating, which is a waste product, and it backs up into the lymph of the breast tissue, is a well known cause of breast cancer. Tattoo ink seeping into the lymph glands has also been noted. I'm not saying that Portalarium chose the wrong cause, or a bad one. I do think they may have consulted women about it first, or at the very least, the whole community, about causes that were important in the world (not just one segment of a population, for example). I don't understand why they designed a coconut bra, that must be worn alone or else you can't see it at all, focusing on women's "perfect" breasts. A pink ribbon on a hat or dress, or an armband would've been plenty sufficient. I tend to be suspicious of what they choose, and why. I'm sure some think it's a good thing. There will always be people that disagree with any cause, no matter what it is.
|
|
nymoon
Insane Carebear
Posts: 1
|
Post by nymoon on Mar 4, 2016 18:26:04 GMT
Random lurker jumping in here, but I've felt this sort of thing was a scam since Blizzard started doing it. Whether breast cancer, a tsunami, or whatever, I can get behind the idea of giving $20 to someone I believe will use the $20 for that stated purpose (the charity). I can't get behind the idea of giving them $10, and paying some third party $10 simply to forward it to them for me. What set me off about it, way back when, was that Blizzard wasn't consistent. Some of the virtual pets they sold indicated 100% of the money went to the charity (this is a marketing trick to make them look morally good). Others indicated Blizzard kept 50% (this is the same trick, but with the added bonus of generating revenue which likely gets recorded as microtransaction sales, e.g. add-on content). My question is who, exactly, is a video game producer to evaluate the overall worth of any particular charity? 'Cause without that this looks like I'm being intentionally deceived (aka "marketed to"). In the end, what these companies are doing isn't that different from making a corporate, tax-deductible charitable donation during the fiscal year in order to advertise a certain image and to reduce the amount of overhead for that year. I get that reputation matters; I've seen Yelp. The difference is that in these cases, the companies aren't even willing to give the money themselves; they're asking their customers to do it for them and allow said company to reap the benefits. Anyway, some things piss me off. Lots of things, actually. But the first time I saw one of these "charity" deals in the SOTA update emails, I was too disgusted to even get mad. It was just depressing. More depressing is the fact that it's an effective fundraising tactic, but I'll spare you my views on humanity.
|
|