• Hey guys! Have you heard? We now have popup
    Yes, Popups!
    messages for your forum posts. Learn more about it here!
  • To keep up with the hype driven by Sword and Shield's release, we are taking applications for new moderators in our Current Events: Sword and Shield as well as Anime and Manga sections.

    For more information, see this thread.We hope you all consider joining our team!
  • We hope you're enjoying Sword and Shield so far! So that everyone can enjoy it and not be spoiled, please keep the all story spoilers and any images from the games in the appropriate sections or in spoiler tags until January 3rd.

    Since spoiler tags are not allowed in signatures, please do not put images from the games in your signature either. You can list the names of new Pokémon if you want to list your team in your signature.

SPOILERS: Official Let's Go Pikachu/Let's Go Eevee Discussion Thread

Unregistered User
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
2,017
Reaction score
573
Problem is the whales don't really help them in a console game unless there's microtransactions. Otherwise it doesn't really how much they're willing to spend to play the game because everyone pays $60 to play.
Plenty of games have MT
 
Eye of the Swan
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
4,878
Ok, guys, can you stop using the term “whales”? Not only that is disrespectful and derogatory , but it’s also an unfair and untrue generalization.

Thank you, and carry on.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,351
Reaction score
9,537
Doesn't the term refer to players who spend a lot of money on a game, though? I don't mean to defend the term at all, since it never seems to be meant kindly, but it is true that some people are willing to spend more on one game that others, and that can be an audience to consider if done in a polite way.
 
Eye of the Swan
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
4,878
“The “whales” of the social-gaming world are a mystery to most of us. As the biggest spenders, they make up a tiny group that drives most of the revenue for publishers of these games. But the word “whale” isn’t a flattering term, and neither are the numbers associated with it. These are people, not just customers.”

So yeah, “whale” is a term that is better to avoid. I suppose “consumer” could be used as a replacement as it is a more formal term, as long as it isn’t used with negative connotations and intents.
 
Young Battle Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
5,302
Reaction score
6,401
I don't think that this game, or any other Pokemon game, will have microtransactions.
 
Gobble Gobble Gobble
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
18,864
Reaction score
2,952
Except it is too simple. And it might alienate some players.
Not every Pokémon game is going to appeal to every Pokémon fan. They already have a fan base for the main series. They’re not trying to attract us. They’re trying to attract those who don’t play the games.
I don't think that this game, or any other Pokemon game, will have microtransactions.
Main games no. Smaller games do though. Like picross and shuffle.

But in seriousness I don’t think we have to worry about micro transactions. They don’t like dlc, so no doubt they won’t go supporting MT anytime soon.


Also referring to someone as a whale is the same as genwunner and casual. So please remember to be respectful.
 
Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
4,948
Reaction score
2,892
@Cresselia92 I fail to see how the term is derogatory, this is quite a stretch. I read the article you took that from (here it is for reference: What it means to be a ‘whale’ — and why social gamers are just gamers) and the person they were talking to that was offended by the term "whale" was more upset by other players that saw his high spending as an unfair advantage. Banning the term "whale" doesn't really solve that problem because the underlying issue is that the other players were shaming him for his spending habits and they just would've found another way to describe that if they weren't using the word "whale". So it's really not the term itself as much as the context it's being used in.

Nevertheless, if you're going to ban use of the word "whale", there has to be some other word for it. "Consumer" isn't specific enough, the context of the conversation is literally in regards to how much they're spending, that's an important facet in this argument. I'm not really saying anything bad about their habits, but the simple fact is that those high spenders aren't really going to have much of an opportunity spend more than others under this business model.
 
Gobble Gobble Gobble
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
18,864
Reaction score
2,952
@Cresselia92 I fail to see how the term is derogatory, this is quite a stretch. I read the article you took that from (here it is for reference: What it means to be a ‘whale’ — and why social gamers are just gamers) and the person they were talking to that was offended by the term "whale" was more upset by other players that saw his high spending as an unfair advantage. Banning the term "whale" doesn't really solve that problem because the underlying issue is that the other players were shaming him for his spending habits and they just would've found another way to describe that if they weren't using the word "whale". So it's really not the term itself as much as the context it's being used in.

Nevertheless, if you're going to ban use of the word "whale", there has to be some other word for it. "Consumer" isn't specific enough, the context of the conversation is literally in regards to how much they're spending, that's an important facet in this argument. I'm not really saying anything bad about their habits, but the simple fact is that those high spenders aren't really going to have much of an opportunity spend more than others under this business model.
Regardless of what they do, it remains a derogative term. It’s the same as casuals and genwunners. It refers to a specific kind f person, but the word is meant rudely. It’s no different than calling an African American the N word or someone with down syndrome a retard, or a gay person a fag. It’s a word meant offensively towards a specific type of person, and there are plenty of ways to refer to them without being derogative. Such as: people who spend a lot of money on mobile games. Yes it’s a bit wordier but it’s respectful.
 
Praise Euterpe
Joined
Sep 23, 2013
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
1,316
Regardless of what they do, it remains a derogative term. It’s the same as casuals and genwunners. It refers to a specific kind f person, but the word is meant rudely. It’s no different than calling an African American the N word or someone with down syndrome a retard, or a gay person a fag. It’s a word meant offensively towards a specific type of person, and there are plenty of ways to refer to them without being derogative. Such as: people who spend a lot of money on mobile games. Yes it’s a bit wordier but it’s respectful.
I'll follow the rules, but I don't really much care for the comparisons you made here. You're comparing hateful terms used against minorities who have no control over what they are with a silly term for people who spend a lot of money on microtransactions.

I also find it a little unnerving that you could throw out those slurs on this forum like that.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,351
Reaction score
9,537
It’s no different than calling an African American the N word or someone with down syndrome the R-word, or a gay person the F-word.
Last I checked, nobody was ever denied rights, assaulted, or killed for spending more money on video games than others. They never had religious or political figures claiming that they had less of a right to live, or discriminated against publicly. It's never been illegal to prefer Gen 1 to other generations, but being gay is punishable by death in eleven countries. Those are the kind of issues these communities have had to deal with and still deal with today. It is far more than just a rude word. (The fact that you had to censor the N-word and not the words "casual" or "genwunners" should make it plainly obvious that they are not on the same level)

You could have very easily made your point without making light of minorities' struggles or posting slurs. (especially for a community you're not even a part of-you and Cresselia92 have both posted that you're straight) I honestly find this comparison quite shocking, especially from staff.
 
Last edited:
Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
4,948
Reaction score
2,892
Regardless of what they do, it remains a derogative term. It’s the same as casuals and genwunners. It refers to a specific kind f person, but the word is meant rudely. It’s no different than calling an African American the N word or someone with down syndrome a retard, or a gay person a fag. It’s a word meant offensively towards a specific type of person, and there are plenty of ways to refer to them without being derogative. Such as: people who spend a lot of money on mobile games. Yes it’s a bit wordier but it’s respectful.
Yeah, there's a huge difference between those racial slurs and the term "whale". Race, intelligence, and sexual orientation are a part of a person's biological nature, they can't control that. So it's a lot more offensive than the term "whale" which refers to a person's spending habits which are a conscious choice and within their control. But this is starting to derail the thread, so let's continue this discussion via PM. For now I'll just call them high spenders, that's much less of a mouthful than what you suggested.

Anyway, back on topic, since the game seems to be a regular $60 console game and doesn't have microtransactions, there's really not much the high spenders can do to drive sales for the game. They could purchase multiple copies, they could purchase one or more Poke Ball Pluses if they really feel so inclined, but that's about it. For the most part, everyone pays the same amount for the game so they have to make their money on sheer numbers rather than targeting high spenders. So there's no reason for Game Freak to target them with this game.
 
Flame Trainer
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
8,577
Reaction score
17,483
I don’t think Nintendo would allow Microtransactions in Pokemon. They’ve been absent from their popular games like Mario and Zelda.

It becomes even more unlikelier seeing GameFreak's reluctance to include DLC in the first place.
 
Nepgear is cute.
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
2,378
It’s a word meant offensively towards a specific type of person, and there are plenty of ways to refer to them without being derogative. Such as: people who spend a lot of money on mobile games. Yes it’s a bit wordier but it’s respectful.
Is it okay if we shorten that to “mobile spenders,” or is that just as bad? It ‘s straightforward about the particular subgroup and doesn’t really sound hostile.
 
Gobble Gobble Gobble
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
18,864
Reaction score
2,952
Is it okay if we shorten that to “mobile spenders,” or is that just as bad? It ‘s straightforward about the particular subgroup and doesn’t really sound hostile.
That’s fine as long as it’s not being used in a way to imply such an action negatively.

Heck I fall into that category since I’ve spent money on mobile games plenty of times.

I dont think pokemon main games will do any MT and if they do, as long as it doesn’t effect gameplay it won’t be annoying. It would actually be nice if it’s the kind that is worth it. Like special perks. Ex: I have a mobile game that by paying for the elite account you gain more exp and can build more stuff at a time, making it worth it especially during certain events. And it’s decebtly priced. If they pulled something like that, then I don’t think MTs would be entirely bad. If it’s something like just buying poke balls though, then it’s not even worth it for them to do.
 
Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
4,948
Reaction score
2,892
For the record guys I only brought up the idea of microtransactions as a theoretical scenario. It'd be the only real way for them to receive full support from high spenders. Not saying that LG is going to have them, in fact if it was, we'd probably know by now.
 
Borderland Sword
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
1,490
Regardless of what they do, it remains a derogative term. It’s the same as casuals and genwunners. It refers to a specific kind f person, but the word is meant rudely. It’s no different than calling an African American the N word or someone with down syndrome a retard, or a gay person a fag. It’s a word meant offensively towards a specific type of person, and there are plenty of ways to refer to them without being derogative. Such as: people who spend a lot of money on mobile games. Yes it’s a bit wordier but it’s respectful.
I know I'm late on this and I don't mean to revive it but...are you serious? You're really saying that calling people "whales" is the same vein as "the N word" and "f***ot"? Really? I'm sorry, but if you find that to be the case, you are waaaaaayyy too oversensitive on the matter.

We would much rather you just say, "we don't like the term whale like we don't like the term genwunner". Comparing it to literal derogatory terms based on race and other orientation is a massive reach and just plain extra.
 
Regarding the term “whale”
Eye of the Swan
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
4,878
I think we have gone long enough with this off-topicness, so let’s try to cut it out.

While the examples given by my colleague are quite extreme, the point still stands. Just because a term may appear “silly” or whatever adjective you want to attribute to it, it doesn’t change the fact that the term “whale” is a stereotypical term with negative connotation, not unlike terms like “genwunner”.

Even if you may find it inoffensive, it doesn’t mean that the term itself is actually inoffensive, as people could feel insulted and disrespected by it due to it also having many other negative connotations. And rather than inadvertently hurting multiple people who may fall under that “category” for a reason or another – like spending the money to get the most out of freemium games or even having an actual addiction – it’s better to avoid using this or other potentially harmful terms altogether. This is out of respect of fellow fans, who should feel free to decide what they want to do with their money for their enjoyment without being labeled with random terms, classifications or whatnot.

Hope to have clarified this topic. Now, if you want to keep discussing this matter, bring it up to the sectional staff members through PMs.

Back to topic, peeps!
 
Top