Tracer #Buttgate - Shots fired by professional cosplayer at Heroes Championships

[Silvanus]

Agreed but that's not relevant, just making the point that girls and men alike make "sexy" poses because they want to make them in real life all the time.

D'you really do that?

Also, I'll need a picture. For science, you understand.

 

[Frankster]

What a time to be alive.

When I'm old and grey (god willing), and my grandkids (god super willing) are looking up to me and asking "grandpa, our teacher gave us some lame homework, what were the big social issues of your time?".

I'd sit back, frown and look all pensive before answering "#buttgate". Never forget kids, never forget.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Because it wasn't a sexualised pose to begin with.

> Reads your post
> Looks at your Avatar
>

So who knows better than I, eh?

Spoiler: Besides man, you know me...

 

[Loop Stricken]

The victory pose is a different situation. It's a post-match pose, something that will be a frequently recurring sight.

Correction, it is an optional pose that never has to be seen if the player doesn't want it.

To be pedantic; whilst it is an optional pose, if the enemy has a Tracer and their choice is to use it, and they win... you'll see it.

You'll drown in the booty.

 

[EternallyBored]

The victory pose is a different situation. It's a post-match pose, something that will be a frequently recurring sight.

Correction, it is an optional pose that never has to be seen if the player doesn't want it.

Im not the n the beta, but I don't think that's true, the whole point of victory poses is for other people to see them, i.e. The winning team. So even if you didn't want to see it, if someone had that selected as their pose, you would end up seeing it anyway.

That's the whole point of poses having various rarities and having to unlock poses, so you can show off your level and unlocks to other people. There's little point in cosmetic unlocks in a multiplayer game if other players can't see it.

 

[kris40k]

The victory pose is a different situation. It's a post-match pose, something that will be a frequently recurring sight.

Correction, it is an optional pose that never has to be seen if the player doesn't want it.

To be pedantic; whilst it is an optional pose, if the enemy has a Tracer and their choice is to use it, and they win... you'll see it.

You'll drown in the booty.

The victory pose is a different situation. It's a post-match pose, something that will be a frequently recurring sight.

Correction, it is an optional pose that never has to be seen if the player doesn't want it.

Im not the n the beta, but I don't think that's true, the whole point of victory poses is for other people to see them, i.e. The winning team. So even if you didn't want to see it, if someone had that selected as their pose, you would end up seeing it anyway.

That's the whole point of poses having various rarities and having to unlock poses, so you can show off your level and unlocks to other people. There's little point in cosmetic unlocks in a multiplayer game if other players can't see it.

Ah, gotcha. I had read elsewhere in this whole kerfuffle that it was an optional pose that only the one using it saw.

My mistake.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

OT: I've been seeing a lot of fan art / pictures of Tracer posing with her butt out as a middle finger to the person requesting Blizzard for pose 75 to be removed. If a professional cosplayer hired by Blizzard taunted them with the pose, obviously the issue isn't minor even though it really isn't an issue to begin with. Try to censor something and people will take notice, regardless of the scale or importance (lack thereof in this case) and take action.

To be fair, there already was Tracer R34, and there will continue to be regardless of the status of the butt pose. The key difference being, now said R34 is an act of protest opposed to troll/wank fodder.

 

[The Lunatic]

I'm not really a fan of Overwatch, as such, I don't really have much opinion in the matter.

However, ultimately, if fans feel that something is being changed for reasons they disagree with, they have a right to voice such an opinion.

The removal seems really dumb, so, I can't really fault a number of other companies mocking Activision-Blizzard for it. I mean, a key part of the internet is making fun of dumb shit.

Be it a Microsoft conference with a guy saying "TV" 100 times, or Activision-Blizzard removing something from a game for unpopular reasons.

 

[runic knight]

What about my assumption was wrong?

Again, you could have checked. You have seriously exhausted more effort assuming than to actually look up where it started.

And as said when you set the time limit to "5 minutes" previously, I did to so. What I got was a lot of speculation as to exactly why they changed it, and some soft-worded explanation from blizzard.

So far all I have gotten was "it is wrong, and I didn't bother to read anything else in your post" from two people now, but that doesn't exactly add anything of value to the conversation, does it?

Yup, it really sucks when somebody barges in a conversation without really any background and, all in all, just adds some noise, right? It's really rather annoying. It makes you want to call them out on that and stuff. I don't know about you, I'd personally give them a taste of their own medicine and retort with a post that is functionally equivalent to theirs.

Well if you ignore the wider commentary on the controversy and the reaction people are having to it in general, the fact I didn't come in completely blind as you are assuming, merely used the word "assume" to put forth my opinion on why they might have done so with regard to a forum post and after they give a very corporate sounding response, the fact that I didn't concentrate on merely a single point, ignoring the entirety of the rest for the sake of pedantic call out based on a single word choice, and the fact that I put a bit more behind my post then "you are wrong" while refusing to explain any of it, you might have a point there. But again, that isn't helping conversation at all, is it?

 

[F-I-D-O]

Except the problem with that is that this isn't LoL, where skins are bought with real money. All the unlocks in Overwatch are earned through gameplay, and it isn't even skill based gameplay. You gain exp towards boxes, which contain the poses and skins, win or lose. Plus there is a heavy luck component to it as well. There is nothing but a time investment. Therefore no revenue is lost because the "temptation" to buy skins and poses is not there. So by having a disable option for poses and skins, the player is just opting out of seeing material that they do not deem appropriate for them or their family. Nothing is lost to the player, blizzard, or other players who like to use and view skins/poses.

The method of gaining it is unimportant compared to making players want to get it. Skins and poses of other characters act as a carrot to keep less equipped players striving, because they too can get that same reward. And if you want players to invest time, they have to have a reason. Disabling one of many incentives to keep playing and pouring hours into Blizzard's product doesn't make sense from a community or business standpoint. Even if you don't make money from purchasing items, you keep players around for whatever the other monetization option is. In addition, maintaining an active, engaged community means more people are willing to pick up the game later, which helps keep the community coming back to your game rather than swapping over to competitors. Again, it'd be an option I'd love to see, but one that hurts the player-driven reward system.

And realistically, Blizzard will sell loot boxes. They've stated they aren't selling maps and modes, but money has to be made somehow and Activision/Blizzard likely won't be happy with a one time investment. If I were them, I'd sell boxes cheaply and rarer items at a premium, but that's a different discussion. I'd like to see an expansion pack model, but they already said they weren't selling maps/modes. Maybe character pack sales, but that would defeat the point of each character having readily available counters.

 

[NiPah]

Spoiler

Must of missed the bodies, all I see is a cosplayer posing.

Also it's still a good thing for developers to listen and engage with the community, doesn't make them immune to judgement, it's the give and take that comes from open discussion.

As for the bit about PC prudes stifling freedom of speech, that's pretty irrelevant to the issue, the issue is Blizzard making a change that a lot of people disagreed with for varying reasons, not really anything new.

If this was the good old days of people just violently disagreeing with each other in completely open terms (or maybe that's just nostalgia for a time when I just didn't see it as much) maybe that would be the case. Since this is the present where people can't just say "I disagree with your criticism and the change," we instead get people acting as though the very foundations of free speech are being violated if they don't get their way. At this point it's not new, but I really wish it would get old and go the fuck away.

But this is just a picture of a cosplayer posing, a jab at Blizzard for removing the pose.

Your response to the picture was comparing it to soldiers dying for a lost cause, you cranked it so far to 11 you almost reached 12, it's so absurd I can't even take your point seriously. No one is mentioning free speech but you, no one is violently disagreeing but you, it's a butt pose.

 

[runic knight]

So non-sexual pose gets pulled because of what i can only assume Snip

There's your problem. Don't assume, and you won't spend a page opining based on those questionable assumptions. Besides, you have options other than to assume.

And many of my opinions weren't based on that assumption either, merely kicked off by them with regard to commenting on the controversy itself. But what is your point here?

My point is a priori reasoning from assumptions gets you nowhere, and sheer amount of text + a priori = wall of noise.

In a discussion forum where you stopped a the first sentence and didn't bother to read the rest, and still haven't provided anything more then a complaint I used the word assumption, you wish to comment on noise. Noise you yourself assumed was there because you didn't bother to read the rest.

I'll ask again, what is your point? What is the purpose you are trying to accomplish here in responding like that? I could get it if you were going on to criticize my opinions or make an argument about my initial statement ,but you aren't. All you are doing is saying the equivalent to "you used assume, didn't read the rest, everything after is wasted text." What good does that do? How does that help anything?

So I'll ask again, what was wrong with my assumption there? Do you even have anything about that, or was this solely because I used the word "assume" and you disliked that? What are you trying to accomplish by being dismissive and pedantic about the word "assume" here?

 

[BarryMcCociner]

I still can't believe anyone found that tracer pose sexual enough to write a tirade on it about it.

Look at that over the shoulder pose. It is as bland as English tea. Maybe even blander, but I doubt that's possible. Slap together a pair of chicken wings and you'll get a more sexual looking pose than that.

I find it more and more difficult to believe the people complaining about "oversexualization" are anything but neo-puritans. Especially when that tracer pose was considered detrimental to the character.

I've tried to look at this from the angle of someone who thinks that way, but there's just no way I can find that pose oversexual.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

#DuckLipsGate2016

Now there's something I would wholeheartedly support removing from a game!

...And from everywhere else.

What even ARE ducklips? Are they a botched attempt at a pout or what?

 

[runic knight]

So non-sexual pose gets pulled because of what i can only assume Snip

There's your problem. Don't assume, and you won't spend a page opining based on those questionable assumptions. Besides, you have options other than to assume.

And many of my opinions weren't based on that assumption either, merely kicked off by them with regard to commenting on the controversy itself. But what is your point here?

My point is a priori reasoning from assumptions gets you nowhere, and sheer amount of text + a priori = wall of noise.

In a discussion forum where you stopped a the first sentence and didn't bother to read the rest, and still haven't provided anything more then a complaint I used the word assumption, snip

I'm not obligated to read your long ass posts. I just picked the first major, obvious issue and left it there. I can't imagine that if you stuck that in sentence one, the whole endeavor improved from there. Maybe you should examine your approach.

You are aware that you are committing the exact flaw you try to call me out on though, yes? You assumed, while openly calling me out for doing the same, and while utterly being unable to explain what was actually wrong with my assumption in the first place. But you still haven't answered my question about what your actual point is about all this. What is it you are trying to accomplish? Because as it is now, it looks like you have nothing of value at all to add to the discussion or topic and posted solely to try to tsk tsk me for making an assumption, while openly doing the same thing. Why bother wasting both our time doing that?

 

[jurnag12]

I legitimately don't understand the issue here. Someone noted they had an issue with a part of a game, the developers agreed and mentioned they had had similar thoughts before, and the bit was changed (Which is what happens with a game that is still in active development).

And yet after this somehow people are still surprised when the gaming community is viewed as the cancerous shit-stain it continues to prove itself to be.

 

[Mau95]

Well I hope her protesting what has to be the silliest "controversy" I think I've seen in a long while was worth it. I imagine Blizzard is not terribly happy about that.

I suppose maybe this cosplayer feels so strongly about it that they're willing to take that hit but this has got to be one of the strangest hills I've seen so many people want to die on (and we've seen some pretty stupid freaking hills lately...)

Most people have nothing important left in their lives, but they still need something to focus on. So we end up with this.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

My only opinion is DAMN look at that little hottie! You make consider my male gaze tittilated.

 

[NiPah]

But this is just a picture of a cosplayer posing, a jab at Blizzard for removing the pose.

Well I was referring to the general controversy rather than just this one particular incident, so...

Your response to the picture was comparing it to soldiers dying for a lost cause, you cranked it so far to 11 you almost reached 12, it's so absurd I can't even take your point seriously. No one is mentioning free speech but you, no one is violently disagreeing but you, it's a butt pose.

So have you just not heard of the phrase "hill to die on" (or its myriad variations), or have you just always taken issue with its use? Besides that, I'd suggest looking around a bit more before declaring that no one is doing something, especially when I can scroll up to the top of this very page to find someone going on about censorship and the threat of moral authoritarians, and this is a pretty tame page of one of the smaller threads on this particular issue. So before you start going on about not taking others seriously because they used a phrase you've decided to take completely literally perhaps you should make sure others have reason to take you seriously. A good start would be not making absolute statements that are proven wrong with a whole 30 seconds of looking around the thread.

I know the phrase, it has its place but it's a pretty harsh criticism to use against others. My point is if you're going into a thread where someone posted a butt pose and pulled out the "another hill to die on" then you're just escalating the situation to a point where normal dialog isn't going to happen. Also censorship does not equal an issue of free speech, if someone complains this is an issue of censorship then they're right, free speech not so much.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I legitimately don't understand the issue here. Someone noted they had an issue with a part of a game, the developers agreed and mentioned they had had similar thoughts before, and the bit was changed (Which is what happens with a game that is still in active development).

And yet after this somehow people are still surprised when the gaming community is viewed as the cancerous shit-stain it continues to prove itself to be.

Look, just because a player left character feedback on the character feedback forum set up by Blizzard to collect player feedback on characters for their game in development, doesn't mean it's okay for Blizzard to listen to player feedback for characters posted on their character feedback forum for their game in development.

It's very simple.