Zaklex.6308 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Didn't care when they came out, still don't care as whether or not you want to purchase skins is a personal decision. It's my money I'll do what I want with it, and I like to support the American economy(which apparently Washington seems to forget is based on consumerism). Call me a consumerist, I'll consume what ever I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > The majority of these votes pretty much amount to "Anet didn't change it the way I wanted? Well then I'm unsatisfied with their reply". > > > > > > > > How often do you cave into your kids' temper tantrums and just give them what they want? > > > > > > In your analogy, which one is "the kids," the players, or ANet? > > > > Well since Anet are simply trying to explain their decision process and some players are raising rather chidlish polls its fairly evident. Not everything in life has to be a conspiracy or due to incompetence. Put it this way, people dont tend to act this way in real life. > > So yeah, ANet would be the kids throwing a tantrum then, "why won't you buy our overpriced gamble boxes?!" The problem with your assumption is, you don't know if people aren't buying the "overpriced gamble boxes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrizzFreston.5290 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Vayne.8563 said: > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > @Zeivu.3615 said: > > > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > > > @Zeivu.3615 said: > > > > > > @"Silmar Alech.4305" said: > > > > > > I answered that I was not satisfied, but my answer could be split: The answer itself was ok. Mike O'Brien showed respect to the players. But the message didn't satisfy me, mainly because I don't know if he really meant it. I still assume, the monetization will just continue in the same way as before, regardless of the players showing their dislike, and his post was just something to only calm the players. The forum threads connected to the issue will be closed by moderation in a few days when the dust has settled (some already have instead of being merged), and all things will continue as they were before the accident. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the end, money rules all, and that is the most important thing for a company. The RNG thing will only change, if legislation changes the law, and the worse companies make RNG and gambling in teen-rated games, the sooner the legislation is made aware of that. In a sense, I'm hoping it gets worse, so legislation will jump on it sooner. > > > > > > > > > > A lot of companies add a clause that their pixels don't have any value in their ToS. That alone will protect their kitten in court. People tried to pull that when it came to gaiaonline, a horribly destructive site with a real, manipulative RNG that fell under the watch of 'Goldemort'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the right lawyers with the right judge could tear that argument to shreds. You can't *declare* something to have zero value if there are people who value the item. > > > > > > If it has no monetary value, it isn't deemed as legal gambling under law. There would have to be a massive overhaul on the laws on the books. Even then it's also stated that you don't own the pixels and it is IP of the site and you agree to the terms of them lending it to you for your use on the site. > > > > But it does have monetary value. You spend $5 to acquire it. TYhey can't say "you can't have this unless someone spends $5 for it, but it has no monetary value." It has a monetary value of $5. > > Actually gems may have monetary value but mount skins don't because they're not bought with your money they're bought with gems. I'm pretty sure that's why so many game companies use a secondary currency and I'm pretty sure it's been tested in court. And is further complicated by the fact that you can get gems through gold. I'm not sure if gems that way have much monetary value either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > The majority of these votes pretty much amount to "Anet didn't change it the way I wanted? Well then I'm unsatisfied with their reply". > > > > > > How often do you cave into your kids' temper tantrums and just give them what they want? > > > > In your analogy, which one is "the kids," the players, or ANet? > > Well since Anet are simply trying to explain their decision process and some players are raising rather chidlish polls its fairly evident. Not everything in life has to be a conspiracy or due to incompetence. Put it this way, people dont tend to act this way in real life. Who said it was a conspiracy besides you? O.o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @"Lady Deedra.3126" said: > I think there response is fine. I own all 30 of them. My wife got all 30 of them. The only critique I would give them on the delivery of them was they should've considered the people who do not have griffons and put each mount type in its own class. Skimmer, Jackal, Springer, Griffon, Raptor and then give you an RNG drop from that set. I actually like them so much i'm gonna be giving them out to guildies all this week who may not otherwise be able to afford them. Looking at them from the perspective of someone who not only can simply purchase all the skins (thus negating any possibility of not getting what you want) but can also give them away, I can see why you don't have a problem with it. If the poor don't have enough bread to eat, they can simply eat cake instead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbramare.9156 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 That whole post was a PR stunt to make people believe anet gives a kitten about their opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weindrasi.3805 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 I honestly don't understand why people are so upset about it. I thought the RNG was fun, myself. It's understandable that some won't like the RNG, but the massive freakout overreaction about it is baffling to me. Like, it is literally an imaginary animal in a computer game. And people act like it's some huge real-world human rights violation. The fact that Arenanet wants our money is a big DUH--they're a company trying to make a profit. If I'm not willing to keep paying money until I get the RNG mount I want, I'll shrug my shoulders and enjoy the game without it. If someone else gets that RNG mount on their first try, I'll shrug my shoulders and carry on. There's just no point in getting bent out of shape over a few pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Weindrasi.3805 said: > I honestly don't understand why people are so upset about it. I thought the RNG was fun, myself. It's understandable that some won't like the RNG, but the massive freakout overreaction about it is baffling to me. First, because gamble boxes are quickly becoming known in gaming as a sleazy way to make more money. Second, because many people were really looking forward to mounts and having skins for them. Now many of those people either can't get skins at all because they refuse to chance wasting their money gambling and not get what they want, or they are against gambling in general, or they do gamble and end up with skins that they either don't like, or can't use because they don't even have a griffon! Plenty of reasons to be upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamburger Jack.2543 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Satisfied. I'm sure they calculated but didn't expect this level of push back, but they're going to keep going and maybe have a different plan next time. Hopefully if we keep beating this dead horse we can get a Horse mount and skins. I'm enjoying the skins and am gifting them to friends who cannot make the purchase themselves and come tax time will probably be gifting the full 30 mount skin license to at least one person. I wish people understood that just because a company fields comments or complaints doesn't mean they have any intention of changing things. They are simply letting you exercise the option to do so. You can be disappointed, but I've seen a good few disappointed people very over the moon as soon as they got the skin they wanted. If anything, if someone choose to spend money on the licenses they'll stop buying as soon as they get the one they want. Yes there's a chance someone individually purchases a full thirty, but there's also a chance someone gets it in one and Anet only gets $10 for 800 gems. They've gambled too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @"Hamburger Jack.2543" said: > I wish people understood that just because a company fields comments or complaints doesn't mean they have any intention of changing things. It is patently clear to me and at least a few other players who aren't fooling themselves that Anet has no intention of changing their sales plans, unless they planned to add more skins to the current 30 skin package which Mike said they would not do. This is a shame as gamble boxes are the sleaziest form of sales and I, for one, will not waste my money on a single box. The more gamble boxes Anet adds to their store, the less money they will get from me. > @"Hamburger Jack.2543" said: >there's also a chance someone gets it in one and Anet only gets $10 for 800 gems. They've gambled too. ROFLMAO! So they've gambled on not cheating someone of getting exactly what they want by simply purchasing it directly?! Terrible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kell.9365 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Dyfinz.2348 said: > Lol there are plenty of other things that need to be addressed about the game, but Anet released a RNG mountskin gem store item and the community was able to raise enough hell to atleast get their attention. Makes me think that a majority of players do not care or are satisfied with WvW, PvP, broken specs, and a lack of enjoyably repeatable content...as long as they have a new fiery farting moose skin for their jackals I don't think a lot of players really expected the level of outrage coming out of the community. May be this will be a sign that players can get their voices heard if enough get together at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @FrizzFreston.5290 said: > And is further complicated by the fact that you can get gems through gold. I'm not sure if gems that way have much monetary value either. They do. Almost every gem in the game is bought with money - gold to gem exchange is just a way to trasfer gold and gems between players, it doesn't really create gems. The only gems created (beyond those bought for money, of course) are those from achievement point chests, but their number is small - definitely smaller than the number of gems destroyed by the gem <-> gold exchange tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Zedek.8932 said: >However, the majority of the complainers would've want an immediate change/fix, and that's not going to happen. I didn't expect an immediate fix, because I understand that this would likely take a little while to unwind, but what I was hoping for, and *still* expect from them in the coming days is an immediate *commitment* to a fix, to say "ok, we know we can't just leave this alone, we *will* be making the dirty-30 available via some alternate method, but it will take us some time to implement a way to do that which honors the commitments made by the existing purchasers." That'd be good enough to me, a promise that at some point in the reasonably near future I would be able to pick up the skins I wanted at a fair price. Then they can take a reasonable amount of time making that a reality. So far, however, the statement makes ZERO promises in that regard, and in fact practically promises that they *won't* ever fix the problem with the existing skins. That will never be an acceptable response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erasculio.2914 Posted November 13, 2017 Author Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Rashagar.8349 said: > But yeah, some people are beyond reasoning with. They'll keep reinforcing their own opinions off each other like an echo chamber without ever letting them be challenged by anything as foreign as logic. At most they'll try vocally dismissing an alternate point of view by haggling over some minor inconsequentiality mentioned in the post. > What you have to remember is that these people are already lost. Their opinions are set and they have closed themselves off to change. You are not presenting rational arguments and pointing out their hypocrisies for their sake, but for the sake of the undecided readers who might still be swayed towards a reasonable point of view. Are you talking about people who are against the RNG loot boxes... Or about those who are defending them? That description looks like it fits both sides... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashagar.8349 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Erasculio.2914 said: > > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > But yeah, some people are beyond reasoning with. They'll keep reinforcing their own opinions off each other like an echo chamber without ever letting them be challenged by anything as foreign as logic. At most they'll try vocally dismissing an alternate point of view by haggling over some minor inconsequentiality mentioned in the post. > > What you have to remember is that these people are already lost. Their opinions are set and they have closed themselves off to change. You are not presenting rational arguments and pointing out their hypocrisies for their sake, but for the sake of the undecided readers who might still be swayed towards a reasonable point of view. > > Are you talking about people who are against the RNG loot boxes... Or about those who are defending them? That description looks like it fits both sides... Not talking about either "side" so much as a mind set (which I notice to be a lot more prevalent on the "rabble rabble" side than the other but I never claimed to be unbiased and I'm not saying that just because you're on that "side" your point of view is inherently unreasonable). There are reasonable points of view on both sides. It's just they're not the ones that get the attention and the reasonable ones are mostly the ones that have been and gone at this stage hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menadena.7482 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @SidewayS.3789 said: > They'd picked the worse moment to introduce the RNG gambling within lootboxes right now. The word has spread, and we have now on Anet's face "Lootboxes game" all over. They deserve it, and much more.Saying "sorry,but we will continue with these lootboxes" means one thing. They don't want to survive until next expansion, and they are trying to milk the whales as much as possible and fast.These thing killed others MMOs...One thing for sure, from me, they will not any coin,and atm i'm looking for another MMO. Exactly, the damage has been done as far as people not already playing the game. Even if they stopped the practice now people not already playing GW2 will forever think of it as another lootbox game given the bad PR and that it was not stopped immediately. If they had remedied it not only would they have gotten in the good graces of existing players but good PR would have seeped out right after the bad PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erasculio.2914 Posted November 13, 2017 Author Share Posted November 13, 2017 But honestly... > @Rashagar.8349 said: > You are not presenting rational arguments and pointing out their hypocrisies for their sake, but for the sake of the undecided readers who might still be swayed towards a reasonable point of view. ...Does that work? Has any of us actually see someone here saying, "wow, I had a completely different opinion, but then I read something so insightful here that it changed my mind"? That's one of the reasons why I like polls. The discussions aren't really "discussions", just people stating their opinions and staying unmoving about them. After enough people have stated their arguments, it becomes mostly a circle between those for and those against something, without anything new being added to the table. A poll is cleaner - you get to see people's opinions without the back and forth that doesn't really change anyone's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klowdy.3126 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 They learned their lesson. From now on, only rng packs per specific mount, so you will get 1 of 10 raptor skins, or jackal skins, instead of a random skin for any mount. Seriously though, in the end, none of these items matter for any gameplay, so let the devs get back to working on season 4, and be happy the mount skins didn't break the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanhelin.3480 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Erasculio.2914 said: > It's, again, interesting to see how stable the poll results are. Pretty much like in the other poll about the mount skins, results have been stable despite the number of voters doubling. We appear to be more or less on: > > * Very satisfied: 10% > * Moderately satisfied: 10% > * More or less: 15% > * Moderately not satisfied: 10% > * Not satisfied: 35% > * Don't care: 15% > > Rounding down a bit (which accounts for the missing 5%). > > I wonder what that's a sample of - the forum community? Those willing to vote? Would it accuratelly represent the GW2 community as a whole (which we will never know, of course)? Or maybe it doesn't represent anything but the opinion of those who have voted. Anyway, it's interesting that percentages are again stable. I use the current poll votings as a small mirror of the whole playerbase. Numbers taken at 12:43 (GMT+1): Very satisfied: 91 Not satisfied: 233 Assuming the 91 very satisfied already bought or will buy the skins this results in gems spent worth €/$ 10.920 for Arenanet. If the 233 not satisfied could buy 2 skins they want (lowest gem amount for €/$ 10), this would result in gems spent worth €/$ 2.330 for Arenanet. It'd need 859 more people who are not satisfied to equal the 91 very satisfied. Even if the 233 could buy 5 skins separately it'd reach only about the half. There one can see that despite pissing off a large amount of players by a rng sale model like this, it still is a lot more profitable for Arenanet if only a small amount of players comply with this kind of "microtransaction". But money should be a worth, not a value, especially in a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny.6013 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Not really but mollified to an extent because we got a response. It was a bad move. They tried to justify it and at least acknowledged that it was a bad move (sort of). Regardless of what the statement says, surely the bottom line is that if players buy these things in sufficient quantity, the decision will ultimately be justified. If we don't buy them, they'll need to rethink the strategy. And feedback so far is generally along the lines of "I'll spend money on this as long as I can choose which skin I want." I'm happy enough with default skins in the meantime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashagar.8349 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Erasculio.2914 said: > But honestly... > > > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > You are not presenting rational arguments and pointing out their hypocrisies for their sake, but for the sake of the undecided readers who might still be swayed towards a reasonable point of view. > > ...Does that work? Has any of us actually see someone here saying, "wow, I had a completely different opinion, but then I read something so insightful here that it changed my mind"? > > That's one of the reasons why I like polls. The discussions aren't really "discussions", just people stating their opinions and staying unmoving about them. After enough people have stated their arguments, it becomes mostly a circle between those for and those against something, without anything new being added to the table. A poll is cleaner - you get to see people's opinions without the back and forth that doesn't really change anyone's mind. > Live in hope hehe. You (by which I mean I) have to believe that people can change their opinions in the light of new information. And that often they just don't want to for whatever personal reason. Again, it's very unlikely to get either of the people engaged in the back and forth to admit they weren't taking something into consideration when they formed their opinion. (If extremely lucky you might get an "I now understand where you're coming from even if I can't agree"). But if people never challenged anyone's opinions then we would never have had social change. And I don't think that, just because we're on the internet, our opinions should remain comfortably unchallenged. (Which happens a lot due to things like blocking, and articles or ads being directly targeted at an individuals' already existing tastes to increase the chance of being clicked on and hence increase revenue, it creates this kind of information bubble around people that alternative points of view have a difficult time penetrating). But you're probably right, and I'm deluding myself or something. I can only apologise if I haven't been a positive influence in the thread, as I've been earnestly trying to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Lanhelin.3480 said: > > @Erasculio.2914 said: > > It's, again, interesting to see how stable the poll results are. Pretty much like in the other poll about the mount skins, results have been stable despite the number of voters doubling. We appear to be more or less on: > > > > * Very satisfied: 10% > > * Moderately satisfied: 10% > > * More or less: 15% > > * Moderately not satisfied: 10% > > * Not satisfied: 35% > > * Don't care: 15% > > > > Rounding down a bit (which accounts for the missing 5%). > > > > I wonder what that's a sample of - the forum community? Those willing to vote? Would it accuratelly represent the GW2 community as a whole (which we will never know, of course)? Or maybe it doesn't represent anything but the opinion of those who have voted. Anyway, it's interesting that percentages are again stable. > > I use the current poll votings as a small mirror of the whole playerbase. > > Numbers taken at 12:43 (GMT+1): > Very satisfied: 91 > Not satisfied: 233 > > Assuming the 91 very satisfied already bought or will buy the skins this results in gems spent worth €/$ 10.920 for Arenanet. > If the 233 not satisfied could buy 2 skins they want (lowest gem amount for €/$ 10), this would result in gems spent worth €/$ 2.330 for Arenanet. It'd need 859 more people who are not satisfied to equal the 91 very satisfied. Even if the 233 could buy 5 skins separately it'd reach only about the half. > > There one can see that despite pissing off a large amount of players by a rng sale model like this, it still is a lot more profitable for Arenanet if only a small amount of players comply with this kind of "microtransaction". But money should be a worth, not a value, especially in a game. There are some rather significant assumptions in there. For one thing, you're assuming that all the "very satisfied" people spent $120 on the mounts, which seems a bit unlikely. It's more likely that at least some, if not most of those people were merely "satisfied that they didn't much care." You also have to consider that the 165 people in the two middle categories sound likely to buy at least a few skins if they were priced better. Also, you say 92 people were "very satisfied," either 30 of them just dropped out, or it was always just 60 people. Or maybe you mistook 9% for 91. In any case, if we instead assume that each of those 60 people bought an average of half the store, 60K gems, that would be 306K gems. If, on the other hand, just the 230 "very unhappy" players were to spend around 1600 gems each, give or take, that would add up to 368K gems. if the other 165 people each bought another couple mount skins because they were a bit happier, that would be another 132K gems on top of that. I mean we can't know for certain how many people would buy how much under various circumstances, but I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that more people spending a little can add up to more than a few people spending a lot, and furthermore, the "spend a lot" players are likely to be just as happy either way, and the more happy players you have, the more people you have willing to spend on *other* things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Erasculio.2914 said: > > @Oglaf.1074 said: > > To be fair, these kind of polls are a good measure because the players who are not satisfied (like myself) are far more likely to go onto the forums, thus seeing the poll and voting. > > I wonder, though. We do have a lot of forumers who come here to complain... But also a lot of forumers who like the game and enjoy talking about it when they're not playing, and even some forumers whose most contributions to these forums are to defend ArenaNet. There's probably a way to try to quantify this, but I wonder if the bias of "people who come to the forum are mostly the complainers" does really exist. There have always been more people complaining than defending on these forums. It's been like that for a long time. And in every business I've ever been in that leaves out comment cards, it's mostly complaints. People who are angry are motivated to complain. You have to be a certain type of crazy to defend. It doesn't get you anything in the end. It's a lot of work. And at the end of the day people think you're a mindless fan boi, who's opinion doesn't count. I'm moderately satisfied with the answer given....but I'm also not looking at the skins and thinking I only want five of them anyway. I like most of the skins. I have a lot of characters, so none of them will go to waste. They're not going anywhere, so over time I can get them all. I don't have to drop that kind of money right now. I look at games like WOW that have mounts in their cash shop for $25, and I think, these guys charge a sub and they're still selling mounts for $25. I don't think people realize quite how tame this cash shop is, compared to a lot of what is out there. I think the reaction to the entire thing is way over the top, but I've also come to expect that from this community over certain hot button topics. But as one of the so-called defenders, there are far far more people complaining, and there always have been. Responding takes effort. It take time. If you're not angry about something, there's less motivation to post, because you don't need to spend the time. I do it, because I happen to have a lot of time....oh and I hate load screens. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Vayne.8563 said: > I'm moderately satisfied with the answer given....but I'm also not looking at the skins and thinking I only want five of them anyway. I like most of the skins. I have a lot of characters, so none of them will go to waste. They're not going anywhere, so over time I can get them all. I don't have to drop that kind of money right now. Fair enough, but wouldn't you prefer to start with your favorites and pick up the rest over time? >I think the reaction to the entire thing is way over the top, but I've also come to expect that from this community over certain hot button topics. But as one of the so-called defenders, there are far far more people complaining, and there always have been. If you want to see a hot-button topic, check of the reaction to Battlefront II's loot boxes on their subreddit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @FrizzFreston.5290 said: > > @Vayne.8563 said: > > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > > @Zeivu.3615 said: > > > > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > > > > @Zeivu.3615 said: > > > > > > > @"Silmar Alech.4305" said: > > > > > > > I answered that I was not satisfied, but my answer could be split: The answer itself was ok. Mike O'Brien showed respect to the players. But the message didn't satisfy me, mainly because I don't know if he really meant it. I still assume, the monetization will just continue in the same way as before, regardless of the players showing their dislike, and his post was just something to only calm the players. The forum threads connected to the issue will be closed by moderation in a few days when the dust has settled (some already have instead of being merged), and all things will continue as they were before the accident. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the end, money rules all, and that is the most important thing for a company. The RNG thing will only change, if legislation changes the law, and the worse companies make RNG and gambling in teen-rated games, the sooner the legislation is made aware of that. In a sense, I'm hoping it gets worse, so legislation will jump on it sooner. > > > > > > > > > > > > A lot of companies add a clause that their pixels don't have any value in their ToS. That alone will protect their kitten in court. People tried to pull that when it came to gaiaonline, a horribly destructive site with a real, manipulative RNG that fell under the watch of 'Goldemort'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the right lawyers with the right judge could tear that argument to shreds. You can't *declare* something to have zero value if there are people who value the item. > > > > > > > > If it has no monetary value, it isn't deemed as legal gambling under law. There would have to be a massive overhaul on the laws on the books. Even then it's also stated that you don't own the pixels and it is IP of the site and you agree to the terms of them lending it to you for your use on the site. > > > > > > But it does have monetary value. You spend $5 to acquire it. TYhey can't say "you can't have this unless someone spends $5 for it, but it has no monetary value." It has a monetary value of $5. > > > > Actually gems may have monetary value but mount skins don't because they're not bought with your money they're bought with gems. I'm pretty sure that's why so many game companies use a secondary currency and I'm pretty sure it's been tested in court. > > And is further complicated by the fact that you can get gems through gold. I'm not sure if gems that way have much monetary value either. The gems you buy with gold came from another player that bought them with cash at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now