Ameepa.6793 Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 I think it's very fair to allow us to buy gems with gold. Never seen such a thing anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladezephyr.5714 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > The way you (and the wiki) calculated the loss is also deceptive, because it is two separate transactions, where the base value of the second is based on the diminished value from the first. That's cheating. If, instead, you trade 100 of currency A and then trade enough of currency B to buy back 100 of currency A, then you will experience the full loss--same as if you sum up the loss experienced by each player for the single transaction. > > All you just said is that your approach is subject to mistakes caused by changing values due to change in stock of both currencies and rounding issues. Sorry, again, that's false. As I already explained to you, there is **zero** error due to change in stock of both currencies, because the prices for both sides of the transaction were obtained simultaneously. There can't be any error due to fluctuation, because there was _no fluctuation_. There _is_ rounding error, but it is negligible--way, way less than the variance my calculations showed from the 15% fee declared by the wiki. **By the way, it was never that inaccuracy I had an issue with**--it's the fee itself, which affects transactions involving gems (i.e. real money) and which as I've said, I think is outrageously high, so much so that it is inherently unfair. Although, with the discrepancy it is even higher, and hence worse... so there's that. > The values on the wiki are based on the numbers provided by arenanet which have stated that there is a fixed 15% transaction fee both ways. So unless you want to get into the debate of trustworthiness of official statements you number is incorrect because it is prone to way more error. Except it's already been shown that it's not 15% with simple math, but a lack of trustworthiness on ANet's part is not the only explanation for the discrepancy with the wiki; many entries on the wiki were correct when they were published, but over time became out of date. I _would_ tend to think that since ANet clearly did make a change here, and apparently didn't tell anyone, **_and_** has an opaque UI that neither breaks down the exchange rate and fees, nor shows pricing history, it _is_ a bit shady. That, I think, also is a check mark in the "unfair" column. But my numbers are correct and the math is sound, and has also now been independently verified by Illconceived, using the method outlined in the wiki and ANet's own API: > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > The wiki is correct... about how the system used to work originally. It was 15% in each direction. That changed at some point (and the none of the wiki contributors knew about it, so the article never got updated). > > I contacted John Smith around when this happened and he told me that he was surprised and would look into it, but I never heard back. > > Another change that happened at the same time is that the net fees for gold:gem:gold (or vice versa) aren't consistent. > * **Original:** 15% in implied fees (measured ratio: 0.7225); this was consistent until the ratio changed > * **10 Dec 2015:** 18.27% (0.668029697) > * **15 Nov 2016:** 17.62% (0.678593631539045) > * **31 Dec 2016:** 17.58% (0.679287469287469) > * **19 Apr 2017:** 17.82% (0.675307718463108) > * **19 Apr 2017 (later that same day):** 17.64% (0.678246022506791) > > The ratios were measured using the API, starting with X gold, converting to gems, and then back to gold and then presuming that the fee was the same in each direction. > * https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/commerce/exchange/coins?quantity=1000000 > * https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/commerce/exchange/gems?quantity=100 So, this is now proven mathematically, _two different ways_, including the way that you blessed (the one documented in the wiki). We just approached the problem two different ways, but if you take the .32348 value I got and plug it into the variable a in this expression: 1 - sqrt(1 - a) you get .1774, which is right in line with the values that Illconceived calculated at different times. Or, if you take 1 - .32348 you get 0.67652, which again is right in line with the values Illconceived provided in parentheses (the percentage of the original value remaining after both conversions). I won't bother to explain the math, because I don't think anyone is really following it anyway (or there would be less argument about this). Suffice it to say, you've got this wrong. However, I don't agree with some of Illconceived's conclusions, which are largely opinion, or at least hard to prove... I don't think the fees, or how they are calculated, are irrelevant to fairness. I think the fee is exorbitant, which I think makes it inherently unfair. And again let's not forget that where gems are concerned, so is real money. That matters a lot to me. I'm also fairly certain that the fee doesn't protect you much if at all from inflation. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there's plenty of inflation in the game, even with this tax. Inflation is caused by changes in the balance of currency supply to the supply of goods that are in demand in the game. It's a fact of MMO economies: Over time, players accumulate more and more in-game currency, but the supply of "elite" items that most if not all players want doesn't change much. Players have way more gold to spend, and drive up the prices of really all items that have any significant demand: textbook inflation. But that's largely out of the control of individual players due to the scale necessary to intentionally influence the economy, or the currency exchange rate. I think arguments that the fees help with this are mostly bunk. For instance, it certainly has done nothing to make it easier for me to acquire a legendary weapon... I most likely never will. I also think it's unlikely it would be easy for an individual to manipulate the currency exchange rates via speculation, again partly due to the necessary scale required, and because ultimately ANet controls them... If their demand-based algorithm wasn't doing the job, they'd just change it. But if there _were_ still a possibility for speculation on currency exchange to influence the exchange rate, I don't think this "tax", as you like to call it, actually does much to prevent that, just as it doesn't really prevent it on in-game item auctions. There are entire series on YouTube about how to manipulate the trading post (and some of them are actually really good, going into great detail about economic forces and how the economy in GW2 works). Bottom line: the transaction fees really do nothing to prevent speculation. They only make it harder for people to do it _casually_. I also dispute that speculation is in any way bad: all it does is move currency that already exists in the economy from one player to another, via transactions that both players agreed upon (which you keep saying is perfect fairness, right?). It takes an investment in time and skill to profit from the market, just like any other aspect of the game, and if you're good at it I see no reason why you shouldn't benefit, just as you would in any other aspect of the game. > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > You seem to misunderstand what type speculation I mean. It should be clear that I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > I don't think the fees, or how they are calculated, are irrelevant to fairness. I think the fee is exorbitant, which I think makes it inherently unfair. And again let's not forget that where gems are concerned, so is real money. That matters a lot to me. Of course they are irrelevant to fairness: everyone is treated the same. Unless you're saying that you expect to be able to convert gold to gems and back to gold without _any_ loss whatsoever. That's not how the TP works; it's not how the exchange is going to work. I'm not suggesting it doesn't matter that the source is RL cash for some people, just that the issue isn't "fairness." > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > I'm also fairly certain that the fee doesn't protect you much if at all from inflation. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there's plenty of inflation in the game, even with this tax. There is almost no inflation in this game. If you look at any "market basket of goods", prices go up & down, but they aren't inflated (in fact, at the moment, prices on some market baskets are way way down compared to years past). The only thing that goes up consistently is the gold:gem rate and even that has varied between 90-140 gold for 400 gems for the past few years. > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > I think arguments that the fees help with this are mostly bunk. For instance, it certainly has done nothing to make it easier for me to acquire a legendary weapon... I most likely never will. The goal of anti-inflationary sinks isn't to make it easier to buy legendaries; it's to prevent it from becoming exorbitant. The price is lower today than it's been historically. The fact that you, personally, haven't figured out how to save up isn't a sign of inflation. (It's generally more a matter of figuring out how to spend less, which is easier said than done.) > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > I also think it's unlikely it would be easy for an individual to manipulate the currency exchange rates via speculation, again partly due to the necessary scale required, and because ultimately ANet controls them... Who said anything about an individual manipulating the currency rates? if there were no fees, people would convert to gems in the morning and sell in the afternoon (metaphorically: the actual pattern is a little more interesting). Even dabblers such as myself would make bank by buying when gems were cheap (e.g most of the last month) and then make bank by selling when a new fancy mountfit comes out (and the rate spikes). The fees, especially the 17-18% rates, make that all but impossible. So the only reason to convert when gems are cheap is to save gold for much, much later. > There are entire series on YouTube about how to manipulate the trading post (and some of them are actually really good, going into great detail about economic forces and how the economy in GW2 works). Bottom line: the transaction fees really do nothing to prevent speculation. Bottom line: that's not what the fees are designed to do. Speculation doesn't cause inflation. Moreover, manipulation is different from speculation. Besides, even manipulation can only spike the price of a few items & only for the short term. The economy is too big to be manipulated at any scale. > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > I also dispute that speculation is in any way bad: all it does is move currency that already exists in the economy from one player to another, via transactions that both players agreed upon (which you keep saying is perfect fairness, right?). Um, the pro-market people don't think speculation is _bad_ when it comes to items. You assume a risk and it works out or it doesn't. But that's not the case for the gold:gem exchange. That's not a simple person-to-person transaction. It's an exchange and its success depends on people believing that the price is based on reasonable supply and demand factors. If speculation was possible (as described above), it would undermine trust. And again, speculation isn't the same as manipulation, although some people incorrectly use the terms interchangeably. Or put another way: the game is better off when even the power traders are saying, "don't bother converting gold to gems for profit; you can't." > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > You seem to misunderstand what type speculation I mean. > > It should be clear that I don't. > It isn't clear to me that everyone is using the word "speculation" the same way in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klowdy.3126 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Since it isn't a necessity, yes it is fair. If you feel differently, don't use it. I bet the game doesn't change one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linken.6345 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > The way you (and the wiki) calculated the loss is also deceptive, because it is two separate transactions, where the base value of the second is based on the diminished value from the first. That's cheating. If, instead, you trade 100 of currency A and then trade enough of currency B to buy back 100 of currency A, then you will experience the full loss--same as if you sum up the loss experienced by each player for the single transaction. > > > > All you just said is that your approach is subject to mistakes caused by changing values due to change in stock of both currencies and rounding issues. > > Sorry, again, that's false. As I already explained to you, there is **zero** error due to change in stock of both currencies, because the prices for both sides of the transaction were obtained simultaneously. There can't be any error due to fluctuation, because there was _no fluctuation_. There _is_ rounding error, but it is negligible--way, way less than the variance my calculations showed from the 15% fee declared by the wiki. **By the way, it was never that inaccuracy I had an issue with**--it's the fee itself, which affects transactions involving gems (i.e. real money) and which as I've said, I think is outrageously high, so much so that it is inherently unfair. Although, with the discrepancy it is even higher, and hence worse... so there's that. > > > The values on the wiki are based on the numbers provided by arenanet which have stated that there is a fixed 15% transaction fee both ways. So unless you want to get into the debate of trustworthiness of official statements you number is incorrect because it is prone to way more error. > > Except it's already been shown that it's not 15% with simple math, but a lack of trustworthiness on ANet's part is not the only explanation for the discrepancy with the wiki; many entries on the wiki were correct when they were published, but over time became out of date. I _would_ tend to think that since ANet clearly did make a change here, and apparently didn't tell anyone, **_and_** has an opaque UI that neither breaks down the exchange rate and fees, nor shows pricing history, it _is_ a bit shady. That, I think, also is a check mark in the "unfair" column. But my numbers are correct and the math is sound, and has also now been independently verified by Illconceived, using the method outlined in the wiki and ANet's own API: > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > The wiki is correct... about how the system used to work originally. It was 15% in each direction. That changed at some point (and the none of the wiki contributors knew about it, so the article never got updated). > > > > I contacted John Smith around when this happened and he told me that he was surprised and would look into it, but I never heard back. > > > > Another change that happened at the same time is that the net fees for gold:gem:gold (or vice versa) aren't consistent. > > * **Original:** 15% in implied fees (measured ratio: 0.7225); this was consistent until the ratio changed > > * **10 Dec 2015:** 18.27% (0.668029697) > > * **15 Nov 2016:** 17.62% (0.678593631539045) > > * **31 Dec 2016:** 17.58% (0.679287469287469) > > * **19 Apr 2017:** 17.82% (0.675307718463108) > > * **19 Apr 2017 (later that same day):** 17.64% (0.678246022506791) > > > > The ratios were measured using the API, starting with X gold, converting to gems, and then back to gold and then presuming that the fee was the same in each direction. > > * https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/commerce/exchange/coins?quantity=1000000 > > * https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/commerce/exchange/gems?quantity=100 > > So, this is now proven mathematically, _two different ways_, including the way that you blessed (the one documented in the wiki). We just approached the problem two different ways, but if you take the .32348 value I got and plug it into the variable a in this expression: 1 - sqrt(1 - a) you get .1774, which is right in line with the values that Illconceived calculated at different times. Or, if you take 1 - .32348 you get 0.67652, which again is right in line with the values Illconceived provided in parentheses (the percentage of the original value remaining after both conversions). I won't bother to explain the math, because I don't think anyone is really following it anyway (or there would be less argument about this). Suffice it to say, you've got this wrong. > > However, I don't agree with some of Illconceived's conclusions, which are largely opinion, or at least hard to prove... I don't think the fees, or how they are calculated, are irrelevant to fairness. I think the fee is exorbitant, which I think makes it inherently unfair. And again let's not forget that where gems are concerned, so is real money. That matters a lot to me. > > I'm also fairly certain that the fee doesn't protect you much if at all from inflation. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there's plenty of inflation in the game, even with this tax. Inflation is caused by changes in the balance of currency supply to the supply of goods that are in demand in the game. It's a fact of MMO economies: Over time, players accumulate more and more in-game currency, but the supply of "elite" items that most if not all players want doesn't change much. Players have way more gold to spend, and drive up the prices of really all items that have any significant demand: textbook inflation. But that's largely out of the control of individual players due to the scale necessary to intentionally influence the economy, or the currency exchange rate. I think arguments that the fees help with this are mostly bunk. For instance, it certainly has done nothing to make it easier for me to acquire a legendary weapon... I most likely never will. > > I also think it's unlikely it would be easy for an individual to manipulate the currency exchange rates via speculation, again partly due to the necessary scale required, and because ultimately ANet controls them... If their demand-based algorithm wasn't doing the job, they'd just change it. But if there _were_ still a possibility for speculation on currency exchange to influence the exchange rate, I don't think this "tax", as you like to call it, actually does much to prevent that, just as it doesn't really prevent it on in-game item auctions. There are entire series on YouTube about how to manipulate the trading post (and some of them are actually really good, going into great detail about economic forces and how the economy in GW2 works). Bottom line: the transaction fees really do nothing to prevent speculation. They only make it harder for people to do it _casually_. I also dispute that speculation is in any way bad: all it does is move currency that already exists in the economy from one player to another, via transactions that both players agreed upon (which you keep saying is perfect fairness, right?). It takes an investment in time and skill to profit from the market, just like any other aspect of the game, and if you're good at it I see no reason why you shouldn't benefit, just as you would in any other aspect of the game. > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > You seem to misunderstand what type speculation I mean. > > It should be clear that I don't. > Can you please go to a currency exchange office and change 100 of your currency to japanese yen, then stand inline for a diffrent cashiers office and exchange it back and see if you still sit with 100 of your currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaxares.5419 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 As others have said, the exchange rate is set by player supply and demand, so it's hard to get much fairer than that. If the question was how spending gold to get gems is more expensive than selling gems to get gold, that's largely a necessary evil so that TP barons can't simply trade gems back and forth to earn gold without ever playing the game at all. (And even so, TP barons have amassed insane amounts of gold just doing what they do. You DON'T want to see how much they can break economies if the tax didn't exist.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladezephyr.5714 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > I don't think the fees, or how they are calculated, are irrelevant to fairness. I think the fee is exorbitant, which I think makes it inherently unfair. And again let's not forget that where gems are concerned, so is real money. That matters a lot to me. > > Of course they are irrelevant to fairness: everyone is treated the same. Uniformity of treatment is far from the only measure of fairness. In the United States, for example, we have a wide variety of business regulations: Anti-trust regulations, public utility pricing regulations, usury regulations... All of these have the same thing in common: prevention of unfair treatment of customers. None of them have anything to do with different segments of customers being treated differently--all of them have to do with the corporation unfairly leveraging its power over its entire customer base. One of the arguments I'm making in this thread is that the high fees for gold/gem exchange is exactly that. It's not usury, because there's no debt involved, but it's at least the same idea. And another one of those concepts applies too: ANet has an effective monopoly, since they have outlawed all competition (e.g. gold sellers), with what amounts to a death penalty: your account is banned for life if you are caught. While I think it's completely understandable that they do that, I also think it's the very definition of "unfairly leveraging corporate power." > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > I'm also fairly certain that the fee doesn't protect you much if at all from inflation. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there's plenty of inflation in the game, even with this tax. > There is almost no inflation in this game. If you look at any "market basket of goods", prices go up & down, but they aren't inflated (in fact, at the moment, prices on some market baskets are way way down compared to years past). The only thing that goes up consistently is the gold:gem rate and even that has varied between 90-140 gold for 400 gems for the past few years. There are both inflationary and deflationary forces in MMO economies. The biggest deflationary force is probably the "meta"--certain items, or even whole classes of items, fall out of favor with the player base, and the demand for those items (and components needed to make them) falls off. But if you look at the trends for meta items, the trend is generally up: inflation. Or at least, it was... until about the middle of 2016. If you look, for example, at the trend for legendaries, it's pretty clearly up from the beginning of time (after an initial period of the market finding equilibrium) until then: http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/30687 http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/30689 I wasn't playing then so I can't guess specifically what caused that, but I can guess that it was a change to the game that made legendaries significantly less desirable in some fashion. Perhaps Ascended weapons got easier to get, providing a market substitute for legendaries. In economics terms, the demand for legendaries became more elastic. Or, possibly, it got easier to get them, effectively increasing supply. Interestingly, iron ore shows similar trends as legendaries: http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/19699 Clearly something dramatic changed in 2016. But the game had the TP fees since inception, and there was clearly plenty of inflation before mid-2016. Also, major events, like the one we're having now, also can have drastic effects on the supply and demand curves for items. Over the long haul, in MMOs, demand probably tends to drop off for most items, either because they become obsolete, or because everyone that wants one has one. The major exception is whatever items are "meta" and the materials required to obtain them. Preventing this phenomenon is tricky, at best. And I do tend to agree that GW2 has done a better job than most at managing its economy... but I still think the TP fees really have very little to do with it. > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > I also think it's unlikely it would be easy for an individual to manipulate the currency exchange rates via speculation, again partly due to the necessary scale required, and because ultimately ANet controls them... > Who said anything about an individual manipulating the currency rates? Well, here: > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > Currently there is no incentive to buy and sell gems and manipulate the market because with the 2 way transaction fee the barrier or required return would be way to high to receive any profit. But there's very little difference between speculation and manipulation... manipulation is just speculation with the added component that you are trying to significantly affect the supply, in order to effect the change you are speculating on, in order to ensure things go your way. > if there were no fees, people would convert to gems in the morning and sell in the afternoon So what? > So the only reason to convert when gems are cheap is to save gold for much, much later. ... which is still speculation, albeit long-term. But again, so what? > > There are entire series on YouTube about how to manipulate the trading post (and some of them are actually really good, going into great detail about economic forces and how the economy in GW2 works). Bottom line: the transaction fees really do nothing to prevent speculation. > Bottom line: that's not what the fees are designed to do. Speculation doesn't cause inflation. Moreover, manipulation is different from speculation. Besides, even manipulation can only spike the price of a few items & only for the short term. The economy is too big to be manipulated at any scale. Yes, if you reread what I wrote, I said that too. The line above was to address Cyninia's claims that it did. > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > I also dispute that speculation is in any way bad: all it does is move currency that already exists in the economy from one player to another, via transactions that both players agreed upon (which you keep saying is perfect fairness, right?). > Um, the pro-market people don't think speculation is _bad_ when it comes to items. You assume a risk and it works out or it doesn't. But that's not the case for the gold:gem exchange. That's not a simple person-to-person transaction. It's an exchange and its success depends on people believing that the price is based on reasonable supply and demand factors. If speculation was possible (as described above), it would undermine trust. And again, speculation isn't the same as manipulation, although some people incorrectly use the terms interchangeably. > > Or put another way: the game is better off when even the power traders are saying, "don't bother converting gold to gems for profit; you can't." I suppose you have a point, but the real world has this. The scale is frankly much larger, but institutional investors can and do manipulate the markets to their benefit. Economists continue to debate the merits of this... I'm still not convinced it's a bad thing. Frankly, you and I are mostly on the same page--though there's perhaps some philosophical disagreement on a few points. The important thing here is that my posts in this thread have mainly been an attempt to clear up some misunderstandings about how the exchange works, and what the costs are. If you read all the posts, almost every one of them displays a clear misunderstanding of how it works, with a few common misconceptions. I admit I got sidetracked by the debate about the accuracy of the calculations, but I think that had at least some value too... that is, if a discussion on an MMO forum can actually influence anyone's mind. ;) There are more misconceptions, and I'm about to tackle the last major one in a moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladezephyr.5714 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 > @"Linken.6345" said: > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > ... > Can you please go to a currency exchange office and change 100 of your currency to japanese yen, then stand inline for a diffrent cashiers office and exchange it back and see if you still sit with 100 of your currency. If you were paying attention, I never said there should be **no** fee for exchanging currency (though I did once _suggest_ that the game wouldn't be harmed if there was none). I've only been arguing that a) it's not 15% as the wiki states, and b) the roughly 18% that it actually is (or even the 15% the wiki claims) is too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladezephyr.5714 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 > @"Zaxares.5419" said: > As others have said, the exchange rate is set by player supply and demand, so it's hard to get much fairer than that. If the question was how spending gold to get gems is more expensive than selling gems to get gold, that's largely a necessary evil This is another one of those misconceptions that's popped up in this thread a few times. Not only is it not a necessary evil, it's **not actually true**. It's not even possible for it to be true. Every trade of gold for gems is also a trade of gems for gold... the ratio is exactly the same in both directions, because math: That is, correctly stated, the rate of one direction **must be** the reciprocal of the other. What does happen is that the exchange rate changes (for both trades) as the supply and demand change. No doubt some of you don't believe me, but it's the simplest thing to prove. http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=EUR&To=USD http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=USD&To=EUR Open both of those links in new tabs at the same time. Within a very small degree of error, the rate that one page will give you will be the reciprocal of the other. In other words, if (as in the case when I just did this myself), you see the first link gives you a rate of 1.18564 Euros to dollars, the rate for dollars to Euros will be 1/1.18564, which it is, within a tiny margin of error due to the links not being clicked at exactly the same time (that fluctuation over time we've been talking about): The site gave me 0.843404, and 1/1.18564 = .843426, with an error margin of 0.00265% caused by exchange rate fluctuation over time. This is how currency exchange works. The difference from these values that you experience when you actually exchange currencies at your bank or some exchange kiosk at the airport is the FEE that the exchange charges you. This is how they make money. It's possible that the exchange charges different fees for different currencies, or even th same two currencies in either direction, but the exchange rate in one direction is *always* the reciprocal of the other direction. The problem with ANet's exchange is they don't tell you what the actual exchange rate is, and they don't tell you what the fee is. I have a suspicion that if they did, more people would understand it, and fewer people would actually use it. Maybe not, but I think plenty of people think like me, i.e. 18% is a ripoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > I don't think the fees, or how they are calculated, are irrelevant to fairness. I think the fee is exorbitant, which I think makes it inherently unfair. And again let's not forget that where gems are concerned, so is real money. That matters a lot to me. > > > > Of course they are irrelevant to fairness: everyone is treated the same. > > Uniformity of treatment is far from the only measure of fairness. In the United States, for example, we have a wide variety of business regulations: Anti-trust regulations, public utility pricing regulations, usury regulations... All of these have the same thing in common: prevention of unfair treatment of customers. None of them have anything to do with different segments of customers being treated differently--all of them have to do with the corporation unfairly leveraging its power over its entire customer base. One of the arguments I'm making in this thread is that the high fees for gold/gem exchange is exactly that. It's not usury, because there's no debt involved, but it's at least the same idea. And another one of those concepts applies too: ANet has an effective monopoly, since they have outlawed all competition (e.g. gold sellers), with what amounts to a death penalty: your account is banned for life if you are caught. While I think it's completely understandable that they do that, I also think it's the very definition of "unfairly leveraging corporate power." > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > I'm also fairly certain that the fee doesn't protect you much if at all from inflation. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there's plenty of inflation in the game, even with this tax. > > There is almost no inflation in this game. If you look at any "market basket of goods", prices go up & down, but they aren't inflated (in fact, at the moment, prices on some market baskets are way way down compared to years past). The only thing that goes up consistently is the gold:gem rate and even that has varied between 90-140 gold for 400 gems for the past few years. > > There are both inflationary and deflationary forces in MMO economies. The biggest deflationary force is probably the "meta"--certain items, or even whole classes of items, fall out of favor with the player base, and the demand for those items (and components needed to make them) falls off. But if you look at the trends for meta items, the trend is generally up: inflation. Or at least, it was... until about the middle of 2016. If you look, for example, at the trend for legendaries, it's pretty clearly up from the beginning of time (after an initial period of the market finding equilibrium) until then: > > http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/30687 > http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/30689 > > I wasn't playing then so I can't guess specifically what caused that, but I can guess that it was a change to the game that made legendaries significantly less desirable in some fashion. Perhaps Ascended weapons got easier to get, providing a market substitute for legendaries. In economics terms, the demand for legendaries became more elastic. Or, possibly, it got easier to get them, effectively increasing supply. > > > Interestingly, iron ore shows similar trends as legendaries: > > http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/19699 > > Clearly something dramatic changed in 2016. But the game had the TP fees since inception, and there was clearly plenty of inflation before mid-2016. > > Also, major events, like the one we're having now, also can have drastic effects on the supply and demand curves for items. Over the long haul, in MMOs, demand probably tends to drop off for most items, either because they become obsolete, or because everyone that wants one has one. The major exception is whatever items are "meta" and the materials required to obtain them. Preventing this phenomenon is tricky, at best. And I do tend to agree that GW2 has done a better job than most at managing its economy... but I still think the TP fees really have very little to do with it. > > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > I also think it's unlikely it would be easy for an individual to manipulate the currency exchange rates via speculation, again partly due to the necessary scale required, and because ultimately ANet controls them... > > Who said anything about an individual manipulating the currency rates? > > Well, here: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > Currently there is no incentive to buy and sell gems and manipulate the market because with the 2 way transaction fee the barrier or required return would be way to high to receive any profit. > > But there's very little difference between speculation and manipulation... manipulation is just speculation with the added component that you are trying to significantly affect the supply, in order to effect the change you are speculating on, in order to ensure things go your way. > > > if there were no fees, people would convert to gems in the morning and sell in the afternoon > > So what? > > > So the only reason to convert when gems are cheap is to save gold for much, much later. > > ... which is still speculation, albeit long-term. But again, so what? > > > > > There are entire series on YouTube about how to manipulate the trading post (and some of them are actually really good, going into great detail about economic forces and how the economy in GW2 works). Bottom line: the transaction fees really do nothing to prevent speculation. > > Bottom line: that's not what the fees are designed to do. Speculation doesn't cause inflation. Moreover, manipulation is different from speculation. Besides, even manipulation can only spike the price of a few items & only for the short term. The economy is too big to be manipulated at any scale. > > Yes, if you reread what I wrote, I said that too. The line above was to address Cyninia's claims that it did. > > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > I also dispute that speculation is in any way bad: all it does is move currency that already exists in the economy from one player to another, via transactions that both players agreed upon (which you keep saying is perfect fairness, right?). > > Um, the pro-market people don't think speculation is _bad_ when it comes to items. You assume a risk and it works out or it doesn't. But that's not the case for the gold:gem exchange. That's not a simple person-to-person transaction. It's an exchange and its success depends on people believing that the price is based on reasonable supply and demand factors. If speculation was possible (as described above), it would undermine trust. And again, speculation isn't the same as manipulation, although some people incorrectly use the terms interchangeably. > > > > Or put another way: the game is better off when even the power traders are saying, "don't bother converting gold to gems for profit; you can't." > > I suppose you have a point, but the real world has this. The scale is frankly much larger, but institutional investors can and do manipulate the markets to their benefit. Economists continue to debate the merits of this... I'm still not convinced it's a bad thing. > > Frankly, you and I are mostly on the same page--though there's perhaps some philosophical disagreement on a few points. The important thing here is that my posts in this thread have mainly been an attempt to clear up some misunderstandings about how the exchange works, and what the costs are. If you read all the posts, almost every one of them displays a clear misunderstanding of how it works, with a few common misconceptions. I admit I got sidetracked by the debate about the accuracy of the calculations, but I think that had at least some value too... that is, if a discussion on an MMO forum can actually influence anyone's mind. ;) There are more misconceptions, and I'm about to tackle the last major one in a moment... Your whole logic and argument in this is flawed from the start, Consumers that Buy Gems with Real money are buying the product Gems, which in the US have stayed the same price since inception, what Consumers do with that product after the fact ie use the Gems to purchase items directly from the Gem Store or convert into in game currency is on the Consumer since those two things are completely independent form the Real Money Transaction of purchasing the product “Gems”, Players aren’t buying Gold with real money or Gemstore items with real money they are purchasing Gems, which happens to be able to be used to acquire either items or Gold. Your argument then would be like saying that it is unfair that Consumer A bought Gems and spent them on X item for Y amount, and then a Month later X item went on sale and Consumer B who bought the same amount of Gems got item X for the lower sale cost. Guess what it’s not and it’s how almost everything in life is when purchasing items. It is 100% fair either way. There is nothing evil about there is nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladezephyr.5714 Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > Your whole logic and argument in this is flawed from the start, Nah. > Consumers that Buy Gems with Real money are buying the product Gems, which in the US have stayed the same price since inception, And as such, therefore, gems are an exact equivalent of cash, in much the same way that a personal check is a cash equivalent. The gems are a promise to exchange "goods" (i.e. in-game items) for a fixed rate of exchange between dollars and gems. The only difference is that personal checks are drawn against a bank, given to some other vendor who will redeem after the fact, whereas gems are drawn against the bank of ANet, and redeemed immediately since they are also the vendor. > what Consumers do with that product after the fact ie use the Gems to purchase items directly from the Gem Store or convert into in game currency is on the Consumer So, you want to absolve ANet of all responsibility to treat its customers fairly? Um, no thanks. If this thread has proven anything, it's that most people don't really understand how the gem/gold exchange works. I wonder how many people who've used it wouldn't have if they did. > Players aren’t buying Gold with real money That's just nonsense. If they bought gems with real money, only to then change those gems into in-game gold, that's effectively the same as buying with cash. There's already related controversy where some governments are looking very closely at things like loot boxes, because since they were ultimately paid for with real money, it constitutes gambling. I can't see how this would be any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > Your whole logic and argument in this is flawed from the start, > > Nah. > > > Consumers that Buy Gems with Real money are buying the product Gems, which in the US have stayed the same price since inception, > > And as such, therefore, gems are an exact equivalent of cash, in much the same way that a personal check is a cash equivalent. The gems are a promise to exchange "goods" (i.e. in-game items) for a fixed rate of exchange between dollars and gems. The only difference is that personal checks are drawn against a bank, given to some other vendor who will redeem after the fact, whereas gems are drawn against the bank of ANet, and redeemed immediately since they are also the vendor. > > > what Consumers do with that product after the fact ie use the Gems to purchase items directly from the Gem Store or convert into in game currency is on the Consumer > > So, you want to absolve ANet of all responsibility to treat its customers fairly? Um, no thanks. If this thread has proven anything, it's that most people don't really understand how the gem/gold exchange works. I wonder how many people who've used it wouldn't have if they did. > > > Players aren’t buying Gold with real money > > That's just nonsense. If they bought gems with real money, only to then change those gems into in-game gold, that's effectively the same as buying with cash. There's already related controversy where some governments are looking very closely at things like loot boxes, because since they were ultimately paid for with real money, it constitutes gambling. I can't see how this would be any different. > Gems aren’t equivalent to cash, they are product you can purchase with real life money, but players don’t have to spend a single penny and They can get gems and everything from the gemstore. And Anet treats their consumers fairly either converting Gems to gold or vice versa, they even give gems away without having to convert gold gem or purchase gems with real life money. I’m not trying to absolve Anet of anything since they haven’t done anything wrong with their Gem and Gemstore design. Gems are a guaranteed amount per dollar product that is no where near loot boxes or gambling, now we can see how far you are stretching and how flawed your logic is, this whole thread is probably due to you finding a perfectly fair and impartial system not advantageous to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > I also think it's unlikely it would be easy for an individual to manipulate the currency exchange rates via speculation, again partly due to the necessary scale required, and because ultimately ANet controls them... > > Who said anything about an individual manipulating the currency rates? > > Well, here: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > Currently there is no incentive to buy and sell gems and manipulate the market because with the 2 way transaction fee the barrier or required return would be way to high to receive any profit. > > But there's very little difference between speculation and manipulation... manipulation is just speculation with the added component that you are trying to significantly affect the supply, in order to effect the change you are speculating on, in order to ensure things go your way. Really? Yeah no reason to discuss this any further. If you can't see how a more volatile market is a detriment to the consumer (in this case the player) I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. This is absolute basic economy 101. Also I never said individual. If you read my statement it refers to general manipulation which implies manipulation by enough individuals (it could be even only 1 if it's a big enough whale). You read something into that quote which was not there. > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > if there were no fees, people would convert to gems in the morning and sell in the afternoon > > So what? Oh I don't know. What could possibly be bad about people manipulating the gem gold exchange constantly with enough resources and time on their hand? I'm sure volatility is greatly appreciated by the consumer. > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > So the only reason to convert when gems are cheap is to save gold for much, much later. > > ... which is still speculation, albeit long-term. But again, so what? It's speculation with a completely different approach. In one scenario there is no revert conversion. People do not convert gold to gems with the aim to make more gold out of it. They do so with the intent on saving when making gem store purchases. You not seeing the difference in these states is shocking to say the least. > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > I also dispute that speculation is in any way bad: all it does is move currency that already exists in the economy from one player to another, via transactions that both players agreed upon (which you keep saying is perfect fairness, right?). > > Um, the pro-market people don't think speculation is _bad_ when it comes to items. You assume a risk and it works out or it doesn't. But that's not the case for the gold:gem exchange. That's not a simple person-to-person transaction. It's an exchange and its success depends on people believing that the price is based on reasonable supply and demand factors. If speculation was possible (as described above), it would undermine trust. And again, speculation isn't the same as manipulation, although some people incorrectly use the terms interchangeably. > > > > Or put another way: the game is better off when even the power traders are saying, "don't bother converting gold to gems for profit; you can't." > > I suppose you have a point, but the real world has this. The scale is frankly much larger, but institutional investors can and do manipulate the markets to their benefit. Economists continue to debate the merits of this... I'm still not convinced it's a bad thing. You are entitled to your point of view. Since you bring up real life examples though, there is: A. taxation on exchanges B. severe punishment on certain types of manipulation C. financial institutions which regulate 2 currencies against each other with very wide reaching intervention mechanisms to prevent abuse if need be Sure arenanet could hand balance the exchange, but why should they if a tax does it for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > That's just nonsense. If they bought gems with real money, only to then change those gems into in-game gold, that's effectively the same as buying with cash. There's already related controversy where some governments are looking very closely at things like loot boxes, because since they were ultimately paid for with real money, it constitutes gambling. I can't see how this would be any different. > Nice straw man but let me step in here because you are intentionally trying to equal things which are in no way related: A. governments are looking at how behavior related loot boxes are to gambling because they currently do not fit the gambling definition, which its self is the biggest legal problem right now B. the main issue in the loot box controversy is how protected minors need to be from predatory practices. It has nearly nothing to do with the actual exchange of money C. exchanging real world cash for an in game currency is in no way related to randomness inherent in loot boxes and constitutes a completely different transaction. If you were actually interested in protecting the customer you'd be against volatility. Which you some how are all for in the other parts of your argument. Try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladezephyr.5714 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > B. the main issue in the loot box controversy is how protected minors need to be from predatory practices. It has nearly nothing to do with the actual exchange of money That's preposterous. If it's not about enticing kids into spending money, where's the predation? Or, let me allow Representative Chris Lee of Hawaii to directly contradict you: "Lee called it “a Star Wars-themed online casino designed to lure kids into spending money. “It’s a trap,” he added. https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/22/16690182/battlefront-2-loot-crates-hawaii-belgium-banned-regulation-investigate Of course this isn't the only case where people are starting to take a good, hard look at in-game purchasing practices. It's just the most high profile, because of the release of Star Wars Battlefront. Did I try hard enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > B. the main issue in the loot box controversy is how protected minors need to be from predatory practices. It has nearly nothing to do with the actual exchange of money > > That's preposterous. If it's not about enticing kids into spending money, where's the predation? Or, let me allow Representative Chris Lee of Hawaii to directly contradict you: > > "Lee called it “a Star Wars-themed online casino designed to lure kids into spending money. “It’s a trap,” he added. > > https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/22/16690182/battlefront-2-loot-crates-hawaii-belgium-banned-regulation-investigate > > Of course this isn't the only case where people are starting to take a good, hard look at in-game purchasing practices. It's just the most high profile, because of the release of Star Wars Battlefront. > > Did I try hard enough for you? He said the reason loot crates are being looked at is because and I quote “the main issue in the loot box controversy is how protected minors need to be from predatory practices.” So you agreed with him. Reading comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladezephyr.5714 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > C. exchanging real world cash for an in game currency is in no way related to randomness inherent in loot boxes and constitutes a completely different transaction. If you were actually interested in protecting the customer you'd be against volatility. Which you some how are all for in the other parts of your argument. I didn't say it was. The crux of both issues, though, is that real money is used to buy an in-game currency (gems, in gw2, "crystals" in SWB), which are then in turn used to buy something else in the game (gold or items in gw2, loot boxes in SWB). In the SWB case, this is considered using real money to gamble (by at least some--the debate goes on), which is the issue with SWB. What I am saying, quite correctly, is that the in-game currency serves as a cash equivalent, as the SWB case illustrates. If there was no real money involved, **NO ONE WOULD CARE.** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > C. exchanging real world cash for an in game currency is in no way related to randomness inherent in loot boxes and constitutes a completely different transaction. If you were actually interested in protecting the customer you'd be against volatility. Which you some how are all for in the other parts of your argument. > > I didn't say it was. The crux of both issues, though, is that real money is used to buy an in-game currency (gems, in gw2, "crystals" in SWB), which are then in turn used to buy something else in the game (gold or items in gw2, loot boxes in SWB). In the SWB case, this is considered using real money to gamble (by at least some--the debate goes on), which is the issue with SWB. What I am saying, quite correctly, is that the in-game currency serves as a cash equivalent, as the SWB case illustrates. If there was no real money involved, **NO ONE WOULD CARE.** Loot crates were gambling the results of the crates were not guaranteed ie gambling... not a hard concept. Gems are a product purchased that are used to get specific items that are guaranteed not gambling... again not a hard concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladezephyr.5714 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > He said the reason loot crates are being looked at is because and I quote “the main issue in the loot box controversy is how protected minors need to be from predatory practices.” > So you agreed with him. Reading comp. The part you missed is where he is using this as an argument that gems (or rather crystals, in Star Wars Battlefront) are not a cash equivalent, which is false since the legislators involved wouldn't care at all if this wasn't considered using real money to gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladezephyr.5714 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > C. exchanging real world cash for an in game currency is in no way related to randomness inherent in loot boxes and constitutes a completely different transaction. If you were actually interested in protecting the customer you'd be against volatility. Which you some how are all for in the other parts of your argument. > > > > I didn't say it was. The crux of both issues, though, is that real money is used to buy an in-game currency (gems, in gw2, "crystals" in SWB), which are then in turn used to buy something else in the game (gold or items in gw2, loot boxes in SWB). In the SWB case, this is considered using real money to gamble (by at least some--the debate goes on), which is the issue with SWB. What I am saying, quite correctly, is that the in-game currency serves as a cash equivalent, as the SWB case illustrates. If there was no real money involved, **NO ONE WOULD CARE.** > > Loot crates were gambling the results of the crates were not guaranteed ie gambling... not a hard concept. Gems are a product purchased that are used to get specific items that are guaranteed not gambling... again not a hard concept. Gambling has been present in video games since just about the beginning of video games. That is not what makes it illegal. It's the use of real money that makes it illegal. But the loot boxes are bought with crystals, not dollars... Except the crystals were bought with dollars, so actually yes, it's gambling with real money. Not a hard concept, but the one you seem to be repeatedly missing, and the one that is absolutely essential to this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > > > C. exchanging real world cash for an in game currency is in no way related to randomness inherent in loot boxes and constitutes a completely different transaction. If you were actually interested in protecting the customer you'd be against volatility. Which you some how are all for in the other parts of your argument. > > > > > > I didn't say it was. The crux of both issues, though, is that real money is used to buy an in-game currency (gems, in gw2, "crystals" in SWB), which are then in turn used to buy something else in the game (gold or items in gw2, loot boxes in SWB). In the SWB case, this is considered using real money to gamble (by at least some--the debate goes on), which is the issue with SWB. What I am saying, quite correctly, is that the in-game currency serves as a cash equivalent, as the SWB case illustrates. If there was no real money involved, **NO ONE WOULD CARE.** > > > > Loot crates were gambling the results of the crates were not guaranteed ie gambling... not a hard concept. Gems are a product purchased that are used to get specific items that are guaranteed not gambling... again not a hard concept. > > Gambling has been present in video games since just about the beginning of video games. That is not what makes it illegal. It's the use of real money that makes it illegal. But the loot boxes are bought with crystals, not dollars... Except the crystals were bought with dollars, so actually yes, it's gambling with real money. Not a hard concept, but the one you seem to be repeatedly missing, and the one that is absolutely essential to this issue. Wow reading comp must be hard I said the loot crates are gambling and when it was released it was the main/only way to get the loot crates was using real money, I said Gems and Gemstore aren’t gambling and gems have always been available without cash. Not hard concepts to grasp. Again see my points above already showed the flaws of your arguments and we aren’t talking about gambling in gw2 false equivalency and flawed logic you already lost this argument along time ago. Quit trying to use unrelated cases ie gambling to say gem to gold conversion is unfair since it’s not gambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladezephyr.5714 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Yeah, whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 At this point, the thread has digressed in so many directions it's hard to remember the OP asked a simple question that doesn't have a simple answer: > Is the Guild wars 2 gold to gems exchange fair? The OP didn't define what they meant by fair, so the rest of us have made our own attempts. Which would be fine, but many of us aren't paying any attention to other people's definitions, including whether those are reasonable standards. So let me be explicit: an exchange is fair when everyone has equal opportunity to trade gold for gems, and gems to gold; when the process is easily understood; when reasonable people can reasonably trust that the rate is based on supply & demand for gold or gems; when manipulation of the exchange is all-but-impossible even in theory; and when it's not profitable to speculate in buying gems for any reasonable time horizon. All those conditions are met as far as any of us can measure, so I call it fair. Some other people have attempted to add other considerations: * Is it fair that 800 gems bought turned into gold and back to gems never is going to be 800 gems? * Is it equally fair for those who buy gems with dollars|sterling|euros versus e.g. rubles or yen etc? **Fees in both Directions:** Yes, it's fair because its a set of fees consistent with any trades that happen via BLTC/TP (although it's a little higher & I do wish ANet would explain why). It acts as another important sink for gold and it applies evenly to both sides of the equation. It's also consistent with RL exchanges. And ultimately there has to be a fee to keep things fair, otherwise speculators could invest at different times of day|week|month to profit heavily from the arbitrage, which helps them, but hurts trustworthiness of the process. (And would add unfortunate spikes of volatility whenever people are interested in new/returning items.) **Non-primary Currency Issues:** The second point is moot in my strong opinion. The RL cash to dollars|sterling|euros has nothing to do with the game's internet gold:gems exchange. ANet has no control over the volatility of RL exchanges, doesn't set exchange fees, and isn't the one doing the exchange. They hire other companies (notably DigitalRiver and its banking partners) who use those fees as part of their business model. Is it fair how they run their company? That's a good question and worthy of its own discussion. It isn't relevant however in determining whether the exchange of those purchased gems is fair. The in-game exchange doesn't care where the gems come from; they all are worth the same to the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > Yeah, whatever... Loot crates are NOT gambling according to US law because as of right now: > Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize.[1] The outcome of the wager is often immediate, such as a single roll of dice, a spin of a roulette wheel, or a horse crossing the finish line, but longer time frames are also common, allowing wagers on the outcome of a future sports contest or even an entire sports season. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling#Regulation The main problem as far as loot crates are concerned is exactly that, you never actually have a chance of gaining any money out of it, and digital goods are not yet considered material. Since you essentially have no prize (according to gambling law as it stands now) loot boxes do not fall under current gambling definitions. A technicality some might say, but that's exactly where high payed lawyers will make their stand. Hence why currently politicians around the world are trying to decide how to expand the definition of gambling to actually consider the mental effect and stimuli which are troublesome if minors are exposed to instead of defining gambling via strict definition of the act. As far as gems to gold conversion and people gambling in game with said gold, that's not even on the radar as far as legislation is concerned. The purchase of gems with cash is no problem since you are willingly stepping into a contract where you are fully aware what material (or immaterial) goods you are purchasing are. Any gambling in game is not considered gambling because there is never any type of conversion back into real cash possibility. Next time, read up on what you are talking about before going all gun-ho and citing politicians without understanding what issue they are actually tackling and concerned about. This is about closing a loop hole which might have adverse effects on minors development and mental state(since minors are considered a group which needs protection). Notice how no one gives a fuss about adults buying loot boxes and you can be certain there will be no legislation affecting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > - The fee for currency exchange is exorbitant and undisclosed by the UI, and is not appropriate for transactions involving real money (gems are cash equivalent since dollars are exchanged for them at a fixed rate) Untrue. For this to be the case there needs to be a possibility to exchange gems to cash, which there is not. The moment you buy gems, you pay for a digital product. How this product gets used is not significant to the definition. Foe gems to be a currency equivalent there needs to be exchange both ways. No matter how often you repeat this nonsense, it doe not become true. Yes, since you spend gems on items in the gem store they function as currency and yes both real life cash and gems are currencies, but they are not equivalent. There is both legal AND practical differences. 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