New Charity Pet making quite the buzz

[MoanaLisa]

No, I won't buy the pet but that's largely because I'm not that interested in it. I don't care one way or the other about store pets/mounts. Never did and certainly unlikely to change my mind now that you can get them with gold.

As for the charity angle, I would prefer that Blizzard picked two or three local charities in Houston and Florida and gave us a choice where to direct the funds. The Red Cross, despite their best efforts, is inefficient due to their size and national bureaucracy. That's inevitable. I don't think they are evil. I just believe that local established local charities do more with less. The Red Cross is an easy choice and I support them through twice-a-year blood donations but I do believe that there are better local choices for disaster relief.

[Lochton]

https://www.charitynavigator.org/

And half of those would sound shady if you don't know about them.

As well, at a defense notch of the Red Cross, when you reach such a size, you need administrative fees too. Unicef does so as well.

- - - Updated - - -

As for the charity angle, I would prefer that Blizzard picked two or three local charities in Houston and Florida and gave us a choice where to direct the funds. The Red Cross, despite their best efforts, is inefficient due to their size and national bureaucracy. That's inevitable. I don't think they are evil. I just believe that local established local charities do more with less. The Red Cross is an easy choice and I support them through twice-a-year blood donations but I do believe that there are better local choices for disaster relief.

This is at least a better counter than stating not to believe in charity.

[Katchii]

I usually don't buy pets because I don't care about them, but the money is for a good cause so I'll likely get one just to have something kind of cool in game.

[Witchblade77]

And half of those would sound shady if you don't know about them.

As well, at a defense notch of the Red Cross, when you reach such a size, you need administrative fees too. Unicef does so as well.

- - - Updated - - -

This is at least a better counter than stating not to believe in charity.

there's administrative fees and then there's what red cross does. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/us...e.html?mcubz=1 for starters. and if you don't mind going to less established sources https://www.propublica.org/article/r...bout-donations
and then there's recent one http://www.houstonpress.com/news/hou...-cross-9767571


maybe they have gotten too big for themselves. or maybe they have gotten so big, that corruption is unavoidable. Volunteers are awesome people. but higher ups in administration? eh... I mean... they are ok enough to distribute blood, which btw, they ALSO sell to cover administrative costs, but for general relief? no.

and .. charity navigator is not something I just pulled off the google search. its been used by various sources, including this one https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/u...e.html?mcubz=0 where while still recommending red cross, they did put a disclaimer next to them as well.

[Lochton]

and .. charity navigator is not something I just pulled off the google search. its been used by various sources, including this one https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/u...e.html?mcubz=0 where while still recommending red cross, they did put a disclaimer next to them as well.

I didn't judge you on that, was merely mentioning that unknown charity organisations has just as big a chance of appearing shady as the bigger ones might do.

And it seems to be more localizations of some charities. The Red Cross here was struck hard by the government and seem to operate more stable. And yes, they might have grown out of their shoes.

[Dystemper]

Not so long as the donations are going to the Red cross. Red Cross has been terrible to donate money to last decade or so. Too much goes to administrative fees

[Xargoth6634]

If it was a mount I'd probably do it. I don't care about pets at all, tho.

[Azahel]

I don' t care if the money goes to Satan. I'm buying that little motherfucker.

You sir, thanks for that laugh xD


OT: If these pets came with a questline with some lore around them, that would be pretty fucked up, but they don't, they are just critters that follow you around and battle against other critters if you're into that kind of thing. So I see no problem.

[Witchblade77]

I didn't judge you on that, was merely mentioning that unknown charity organisations has just as big a chance of appearing shady as the bigger ones might do.

And it seems to be more localizations of some charities. The Red Cross here was struck hard by the government and seem to operate more stable. And yes, they might have grown out of their shoes.

see, the problem is.. your local red cross might be operating wonderfully, but the money is not going to your local office directly. its going through so many channels, that by the time the funds trickle down to your local office, they'd be lucky to get 25 cents from every dollar donated.

and here's the thing. ASPCA is ALSO a very large organization. and yet, they don't have the issues with transparency and distribution of funds that Red Cross does. so size alone is not an issue here. Red Cross's current leadership is.

[rhorle]

I wonder what happens if you buy it with gold tokens/Blizzard balance? The money went to Blizzard weeks or months ago, so does anything actually go to charity if you buy it like this?

Yes. Blizzard.net Balance is the same as a giftcard. It is a digital representation of physical funds and is paid/used the same as such. When you buy something with your credit card it acts the same as buying it with Blizzard.net Balance. The funds are transfered from one account to the other. If you understand how credit cards work then this shouldn't even be a question.

[Xargoth6634]

Nope, both Red Cross and Crescent support invasion of Europe.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

[Allatar]

The way it scratches its ear with its back paw is cute beyond fuck.

[Kaiarra]

42 new pets. And yes, hating Blizzard is vogue.

And how many of those 42 new pets are actually a new unique model, that changes colour, with cool particle/spell effects and custom animations? I'm going to guess zero. I think there would be a lot less contention if the pets we got in-game were the same quality as the ones on the store.

The pets we got for in 7.3 are basically all mobs scaled down to pet size. I honestly found it hard to care about collecting most of them because they're just so dull; sure Naxxy is cool, but the rest, meh. The raid meta pet isn't even a custom model or anything at all special. Sure we get quantity but honestly I'd rather have only have 1-2 new pets each patch, if they were as well made as the cash shop pets.

I mean there's over 900 pets now, the last achv was at 600. Maybe instead of milking more cash from people with yet another store pet (honestly I don't care if latest one's for a charity stunt (to a shady charity)) they could maybe add a new achv for 800 pets with a unique model and animations? Crazy talk I know.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Was going to purchase it for in-game gold, but seeing that it's a charity pet, I bought it for the 10 it cost.

I would probably have waited until it was on sale before buying it had it NOT been a charity pet, since then I would've bought it for in-game gold.

[Allatar]

And how many of those 42 new pets are actually a new unique model, that changes colour, with cool particle/spell effects and custom animations? I'm going to guess zero. I think there would be a lot less contention if the pets we got in-game were the same quality as the ones on the store.

The pets we got for in 7.3 are basically all mobs scaled down to pet size. I honestly found it hard to care about collecting most of them because they're just so dull; sure Naxxy is cool, but the rest, meh. The raid meta pet isn't even a custom model or anything at all special. Sure we get quantity but honestly I'd rather have only have 1-2 new pets each patch, if they were as well made as the cash shop pets.

I mean there's over 900 pets now, the last achv was at 600. Maybe instead of milking more cash from people with yet another store pet (honestly I don't care if latest one's for a charity stunt (to a shady charity)) they could maybe add a new achv for 800 pets with a unique model and animations? Crazy talk I know.

Fucking get over yourself. Seriously.

[caervek]

Fucking get over yourself. Seriously.

What an amazing response to a well written and thought out post, you totally addressed all the genuine points/concerns listed, 10/10, would read again.

[Yuyn]

I did not mean Russia.

Nobody else is invading Europe.

[Rudkobing]

i must admit, i lol'd and people at work heard me haha.

I too am buying the pet, and I don't care if it went to charity or into blizzards sweaty hands. Its completely optional, so no harm, no foul.

Your welcome.

[-Joker-]

there's like 30 new pets added with 7.3.

blizz release 1 in their store, OMG MONEY HUNGRY BASTARDS /s

One which they make zero profit for. Yet people still lose their minds.

[ro9ue]

I don' t care if the money goes to Satan. I'm buying that little motherfucker.

Hahaha comment of the year.