Please note, that I don't say "What Blizzard say - is demagogy" - I say, that "What Blizzard say - looks like demagogy".
I've always felt it, but couldn't express this feeling - find a right name for it. Now, I guess, I've found it.
I've been browsing Wikipedia for article about
Fallacies to make my post against "My progress is better - then I'm right" argument in "Why don't you show your main?" thread and accidentally came across
Demagogy article. English variant of this article isn't good, cuz other variants also mention, what methods Demagogues usually use to reach their goals - such as
Populism and
Fallacies.
So. I've always felt, that Blizzard behave like politicians - they manipulate players with weak minds. Yeah. Do they need to make some unpopular change, that will bring benefits to them only, but not to players? Players will be against it? Tons of threads with hundreds of pages will appear? What can they do? It's simple! They need to substitute terms! Switch unpopular concept, which that one, that will be popular.
Players won't like no flying, if Blizzard will simply say, that flying is bad? Yeah, say, that this is done for immersion sake, even if immersion argument can simply be proven wrong - and crowd of people will defend it.
Pruning will be unpopular, if Blizzard will openly say, that they want to make game easier in order to bring more new players? Hide it behind "class fantasy" concept, that actually isn't even directly connected with number of buttons, players have.
Via doing it, Blizzard exploits several fallacies - such as:
1)
Populism - say, that what you do - is for the sake of what crowd wants and this crowd will support you. Say, that no flying is for immersion sake and crowd, that don't understand, that they've lost immersion, cuz they've outgrown this game and burned out from it due to playing too much - will support you.
2)
Dourble standards - Blizzard accept argument, when it suits them, but reject it, if it doesn't. If they talk about 2M gold/500$ P2W Spider mount - "We want to satisfy all players - even tiny minority". If they talk about flying - "50% players want it? It won't happen - no compromise". Or they say, that they hate, when players use hyperboles, yet they constantly use them by themselves (worst case scenarios and exaggerations, such as "players completely skill content via flying").
3)
Stawman - substitute flying problem with immersion problem. We need to return immersion, therefore flying is bad - so let's remove flying.
4)
Flase dilemma - you can either have "immersion" or "flying"/either "class fantasy" or "deep rotation" - both or some 3rd variant aren't possible.
5)
Identifying a false cause and effect - Blizzard implemented flying - then immersion was lost, world became small, WPVP died. Then flying - is the reason, why killing mobs and other players (WPVP), travelling from point A to point B, etc. - are pointless, not concepts of this things themselves.
6)
Cherry picking - when Blizzard don't want to do something, they usually cherry pick worst case scenario. For example they have always been refusing to implement Tri-spec, cuz they were afraid, that
ALL players will use it for min-maxing, while 90% of players don't care about their performance.
7)
Red herring - distract players from a relevant or important issues. Blizzard use scandals with minor things in order to drive players' attention away from real problems. For example, they fix, what isn't broken, make obviously stupid changes only to revert them after several days of forum drama.