Is the Guild wars 2 gold to gems exchange fair?

[Bladezephyr.5714]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> 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.

You're still missing the point.

 

> 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

I'm well-versed and completely understood. You're just not connecting the dots. The argument wasn't ever about whether it was technically gambling, but whether gems were considered real money. They are, for the same reason that SWB crystals are in the gambling case. As I've said 3 times now, if the in game junk wasn't considered to have been bought with real money, absolutely no one would care.

 

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > 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.

> You're still missing the point.

>

> > 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

> I'm well-versed and completely understood. You're just not connecting the dots. The argument wasn't ever about whether it was technically gambling, but whether gems were considered real money. They are, for the same reason that SWB crystals are in the gambling case. As I've said 3 times now, if the in game junk wasn't considered to have been bought with real money, absolutely no one would care.

>

 

And as I've repeatedly stated, you are incorrect both legally and practically. Equivalence by its very definition requires:

 

> equivalence

> the condition of being equal or equivalent in value, worth, function, etc.

 

Gems are in no way equivalent to real world cash. They function as nonequivalent currency in game.

[Bladezephyr.5714]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"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.

It's technically true that they don't satisfy the legal definition of cash equivalent, but they do satisfy the natural language definition: they serve as a cash substitute for ANet's store. But the distinction is irrelevant for the reasons I've already stated... The people who matter (legislators), and most people in general, will consider it using real money to buy in game junk. Because it is, and that was always the intent. If you want to buy gold with dollars, ANet wants you giving THEM your money instead of some third party.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"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.

> It's technically true that they don't satisfy the legal definition of cash equivalent, but they do satisfy the natural language definition: they serve as a cash substitute for ANet's store (both in game and out of game). But the distinction is irrelevant for the reasons I've already stated... The people who matter (legislators), and most people in general, will consider it using real money to buy in game junk. Because it is, and that was always the intent. If you want to buy gold with dollars, ANet wants you giving THEM your money instead of some third party.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/10/12/the-esrb-is-wrong-about-loot-boxes-and-gambling/#3865b3fa2a64

 

and you are wrong again:

> “ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling. While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.”

 

Here is your problem: you think yourself so smart that you dispute or dismiss technicalities which are actually quite significant.

 

If you want to buy gems with money, you are free to do so under simple contract law (as you are for SW:Battlefront 2 credits as much as it pains me to say so since I dislike EA). This has nothing to do with the current loot box dilemma no matter how often you try to make it stick.

[Bladezephyr.5714]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Here is your problem: you think yourself so smart that you dispute or dismiss technicalities which are actually quite significant.

> If you want to buy gems with money, you are free to do so under simple contract law (as you are for SW:Battlefront 2 credits as much as it pains me to say so since I dislike EA). This has nothing to do with the current loot box dilemma no matter how often you try to make it stick.

 

I don't have to make it stick; Chris Lee of Hawaii and other legislators are going to make it stick for me. What the SWB case demonstrates is that people already think the same way I'm explaining it. Not everyone, certainly, but you can't even get everyone to agree that the Earth isn't flat. =)

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

> @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > Here is your problem: you think yourself so smart that you dispute or dismiss technicalities which are actually quite significant.

> > If you want to buy gems with money, you are free to do so under simple contract law (as you are for SW:Battlefront 2 credits as much as it pains me to say so since I dislike EA). This has nothing to do with the current loot box dilemma no matter how often you try to make it stick.

>

> I don't have to make it stick; Chris Lee of Hawaii and other legislators are going to make it stick for me. What the SWB case demonstrates is that people already think the same way I'm explaining it. Not everyone, certainly, but you can't even get everyone to agree that the Earth isn't flat. =)

 

Ah cute avoiding my post above because it shuts down your argument?

 

[Bladezephyr.5714]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/10/12/the-esrb-is-wrong-about-loot-boxes-and-gambling/#3865b3fa2a64

>

> and you are wrong again:

> > “ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling. While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.”

 

Did you miss the title of the article, and all of the exposition that follows your quote? Forbes agrees with me. And so will LOTS of other people. The article also goes on to talk about the addiction gaming model I mentioned in my summary post.

 

Here's a quote that you decided NOT to post:

 

"The fact that [star Wars] Battlefront II is going to be Teen rated and yet has an in-game real money gambling system blows my mind. How are they possibly getting away with that?."

 

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

> @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/10/12/the-esrb-is-wrong-about-loot-boxes-and-gambling/#3865b3fa2a64

> >

> > and you are wrong again:

> > > “ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling. While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.”

>

> Did you miss the title of the article, and all of the exposition that follows your quote? Forbes agrees with me. And so will LOTS of other people. The article also goes on to talk about the addiction gaming model I mentioned in my summary post.

>

> Here's a quote that you decided NOT to post:

>

> "The fact that [star Wars] Battlefront II is going to be Teen rated and yet has an in-game real money gambling system blows my mind. How are they possibly getting away with that?."

>

 

By legal definition it’s not a real money gambling method. Not a technicality it’s is the fact of the matter. You are just parroting people’s opinions in that article.

[Bladezephyr.5714]

> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> Ah cute avoiding my post above because it shuts down your argument?

No, that's not the reason I ignored your post.

 

 

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

> @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> > Ah cute avoiding my post above because it shuts down your argument?

> No, that's not the reason I ignored your post.

>

>

So humor me try to refute the points I brought up with citations of laws and evidence to refute the claims of the BLTP and BLTC, already know why it wasn’t provided before.

 

[Bladezephyr.5714]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> and you are wrong again:

By the way, you do realize that the ESRB is made up of game companies, right? **Of course** they don't think it's gambling, it's in the entire industry's best interest for it not to be. But whether or not it's gambling was still never the point--only that the currency used was considered real money.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > and you are wrong again:

> By the way, you do realize that the ESRB is made up of game companies, right? **Of course** they don't think it's gambling, it's in the entire industry's best interest for it not to be. But whether or not it's gambling was still never the point--only that the currency used was considered real money.

 

You do realise I was quoting the official stance of the ESRB in that Forbes article and yes they are representing gaming companies but are also one of the first sources to go to as far as legislation.

 

The author of the Forbes article does exactly what you do: he gives his personal opinion. Unlike you though he doesn't sell it off as fact.

 

As far as gems being equivalent currency, I think we've covered that already.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > Here is your problem: you think yourself so smart that you dispute or dismiss technicalities which are actually quite significant.

> > If you want to buy gems with money, you are free to do so under simple contract law (as you are for SW:Battlefront 2 credits as much as it pains me to say so since I dislike EA). This has nothing to do with the current loot box dilemma no matter how often you try to make it stick.

>

> I don't have to make it stick; Chris Lee of Hawaii and other legislators are going to make it stick for me. What the SWB case demonstrates is that people already think the same way I'm explaining it. Not everyone, certainly, but you can't even get everyone to agree that the Earth isn't flat. =)

 

And once they make it stick, we can discuss that scenario. Until then, stick to current facts and given legislation without mixing your personal opinion in as fact or given.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > 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.

>

> The implication here is that you think my criteria for fairness is unreasonable. So... by saying this, I guess you're also calling anti-trust laws, usury laws, and the general class of laws that try to ensure transparency in business and protect consumers from unreasonable and unfair business practices by corporations "unreasonable." I'm glad you don't make the laws. =)

>

> > 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;

>

> Given this thread, how can you say that the process is easily understood? The entire thread is fraught with misconceptions about how it works!

>

> I'll sum up my case then as well.

>

> The trading post currency exchange is **not** fair because:

> - The process is **not** transparent and **not** easily understood, as was plainly illustrated by this thread.

> - ANet does **not** break down its exchange rates and fees in the UI for currency exchange.

> - ANet enforces a monopoly by forbidding competition for purchasing in-game currency with real money, and imposing harsh punishment for violators who are caught.

> - 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)

> - The fee is **not** consistent with the rest of the trading post, it is actually several percent higher and variable.

> - ANet is unfairly leveraging is captive audience by imposing a high, undisclosed fee (you can figure it out with math from the UI, but lots of people aren't good at math and don't want to do it even when they can).

> - ANet is exploiting the well-documented addiction model of gaming to entice players to spend more money for in-game goodies and currency.

>

> _However_, it's well understood that gem store purchases are how ANet is able to continue to support the game and make money. if you understand all of the above, and still think the exchange has value to you, then, and only then, if you still want to use it, it's fair.

 

One clicks on a button in a UI that tells you exactly how many gems you get for your gold, or gold for your gems. If the number offered is in line with your values you click a mouse button or two and are done. This process is not exactly rocket science. People have understood, and acted on that understanding for years now.

 

You mention antitrust laws, and yet this industry is experiencing a glut of competition, not a lack. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of competitors for the consumer's money in this field.

 

 

 

At no point are you required to make such an exchange, but you can gain either currency, gold or gems, without spending real money.

[kahzee.6042]

Id say yes I have no issues with it

[Bladezephyr.5714]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > I don't have to make it stick; Chris Lee of Hawaii and other legislators are going to make it stick for me. What the SWB case demonstrates is that people already think the same way I'm explaining it. Not everyone, certainly, but you can't even get everyone to agree that the Earth isn't flat. =)

>

> And once they make it stick, we can discuss that scenario. Until then, stick to current facts and given legislation without mixing your personal opinion in as fact or given.

 

You're arguing semantics; I gave you an example where an authority of a sort used the same semantics I did. That's valid and factual.

 

I'm officially signing off this thread. It's sucked up way too much of my time.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

> @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > > I don't have to make it stick; Chris Lee of Hawaii and other legislators are going to make it stick for me. What the SWB case demonstrates is that people already think the same way I'm explaining it. Not everyone, certainly, but you can't even get everyone to agree that the Earth isn't flat. =)

> >

> > And once they make it stick, we can discuss that scenario. Until then, stick to current facts and given legislation without mixing your personal opinion in as fact or given.

>

> You're arguing semantics; I gave you an example where an authority of a sort used the same semantics I did. That's valid and factual.

>

> I'm officially signing off this thread. It's sucked up way too much of my time.

 

No you parroted an opinion of the matter not a fact on the matter. Big difference

[Linken.6345]

> @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > 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.

> You're still missing the point.

>

> > 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

> I'm well-versed and completely understood. You're just not connecting the dots. The argument wasn't ever about whether it was technically gambling, but whether gems were considered real money. They are, for the same reason that SWB crystals are in the gambling case. As I've said 3 times now, if the in game junk wasn't considered to have been bought with real money, absolutely no one would care.

>

 

So can you get SWB crystals by playing the game and convert ingame currency to crystals in that game to or only buy it with real money?

If its only with real money you cant make a comparison to gems.

[Shirlias.8104]

I didn't read the whole thread but I do have a question.

 

Since the wiki is something made by players, is the percentage fee about gems something which has been stated by ANET or just players?

 

What i mean is

 

> Did ANET say anything about gems to gold, and viceversa, fees or the percentage is something that players managed to know through the api feature? So, apart the fact they told there would have been fees exchange related, did they also stated the exact percentage and players managed Somehow that it was not accurate?

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Shirlias.8104" said:

> I didn't read the whole thread but I do have a question.

>

> Since the wiki is something made by players, is the percentage fee about gems something which has been stated by ANET or just players?

>

> What i mean is

>

> > Did ANET say anything about gems to gold, and viceversa, fees or the percentage is something that players managed to know through the api feature? So, apart the fact they told there would have been fees exchange related, did they also stated the exact percentage and players managed Somehow that it was not accurate?

 

ANet hasn't said anything about the _current_ fees, but as I recall, John Smith commented on the original fees back in the day. (Most of the comments were generic.) (He did reply to a PM of mine regarding the newer fees, but not with anything that helps us understand why it changed.)

 

The wiki still cites 15% implied in both directions because (a) it was provably true for a long time and (b) that's consistent with "selling on the TP" (since you are always selling to the exchange, not to another player, as with the TP). I did my own research using the API to determine that the implied fees changed sometime in 2015, from 15% to closer to 17-18% ... and it's no longer consistent, that is, using the same numbers, we get different results depending on when we check (mind you: the differences are relatively small, just larger than rounding errors).

 

As far as I know, wiki editors haven't been made aware of the new numbers, which is why it still cites 15%.

And although 15% is technically inaccurate, it's close enough to give people the idea that they cannot buy gems with gold and resell them to make a profit, not in any sort of way that would make it worth the risk of tying up that much coin for that long. (Far easier to speculate in more reliable item markets, especially materials.)

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > The implication here is that you think my criteria for fairness is unreasonable.

You haven't actually stated your criteria. So I don't know. I only mentioned to specific things which have been mentioned (maybe by you? I honestly didn't check):

* fees in both directions, which are standard in currency exchanges and

* whether it matters that gems are bought with RL monies other than dollars|euros|sterling (it can't, since that's outside the scope of the universe that ANet can have influence on)

 

> > So... by saying this, I guess you're also calling anti-trust laws, usury laws, and the general class of laws that try to ensure transparency in business and protect consumers from unreasonable and unfair business practices by corporations "unreasonable." I'm glad you don't make the laws. =)

What? Where does any of that even begin to apply to the gold:gem exchange?

* Do you think ANet is a monopoly because it's the only company from which you can buy GW2 and the gems used in its gem shop? (besides which, people don't have to spend a dime for gems; they can use in-game gold, which is why the exchange is there).

* Usury is about lending money at exorbitant rates. No one is lending in this case; it's not even possible within the game's mechanics.

* The general class of laws that ensures transparency in business doesn't apply to the gold:gem exchange, if for no other reason than it's already plain how it works. ANet has explained it, the wiki explains it, and people have used it millions of times.

 

 

 

> > > 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;

Right, which is what we have here.

 

> >

> > Given this thread, how can you say that the process is easily understood? The entire thread is fraught with misconceptions about how it works!

Where? The only thing that is misunderstood is the fees and that's only because people understandably trusted the wiki (which did used to be correct). And the difference is relatively minor. The mechanic works as described, except for the fraction spent on fees.

 

> > The trading post currency exchange is **not** fair because:

> > - The process is **not** transparent and **not** easily understood, as was plainly illustrated by this thread.

Again, this thread does not illustrate non-transparency.

 

> > - ANet does **not** break down its exchange rates and fees in the UI for currency exchange.

While technically true, I don't see how that relates to whether it's fair. They give you exactly as many gems|coins as they say they are going to give. And it's trivial to use the API to see that the rates match.

 

> > - ANet enforces a monopoly by forbidding competition for purchasing in-game currency with real money, and imposing harsh punishment for violators who are caught.

It's their game. They have a right to prevent people from profiting off of the theft of accounts and credit cards. The idea of a monopoly doesn't apply _within the game_. They set a single exchange which everyone uses so everyone has access to exactly the same rates. With the black market, which you seem to be advocating, the system would be unfair, because people would get different rates depending on how shady the source.

 

> > - 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)

Define exorbitant? You already mentioned the UI and again, while technically true, it's moot for the purposes of determining if the exchange is fair.

And the transactions **do not** involve real money. It's strictly gems to gold and gold to gems. The real money transactions take place beforehand.

 

> > - The fee is **not** consistent with the rest of the trading post, it is actually several percent higher and variable.

It's consistent in that there's a fee applied each time you sell something. Yes, it's slightly higher and yes it seems to vary by a tiny amount, but that, by itself, isn't unfair.

Or I suppose, we can't determine if it is or not because you haven't set out your criteria for fairness.

 

> > - ANet is unfairly leveraging is captive audience by imposing a high, undisclosed fee (you can figure it out with math from the UI, but lots of people aren't good at math and don't want to do it even when they can).

You've understood the mechanic, but misunderstood the purpose. It's a gold sink. The goal is to remove liquid coin from the economy, to prevent inflation.

 

 

> > - ANet is exploiting the well-documented addiction model of gaming to entice players to spend more money for in-game goodies and currency.

What in Kormir's name has that to do with the exchange mechanic?

There might or might not be an issue with loot boxes in this game, but that's unrelated to whether the exchange is or isn't fair.

 

> >

> > _However_, it's well understood that gem store purchases are how ANet is able to continue to support the game and make money.

Technically, it's the purchase of gems with real money that makes a big hunk of ANet's income. They don't much care if you end up spending the gems on stuff or not. They do, of course, try to offer stuff that will convince people to spend more RL cash, as do all businesses. Procter & Gamble wants us to believe that people with whiter teeth are happier than those who don't use bleaching agent, because they can ask for a huge premium on toothpaste with an extra penny or five of materials.

 

> if you understand all of the above, and still think the exchange has value to you, then, and only then, if you still want to use it, it's fair.

Those are different things.

* We don't have to understand the exchange for it to be fair (or unfair)

* We don't have to think it has value to us personally for it to be important to the game... or for it to be fair.

* We don't even have to use it.

 

or tl;dr

Start by defining what you think makes for a fair exchange. And please, try not to bring in stuff that isn't part of selling gold to get gems or vice versa.

Ideally, keep in mind additional goals that ANet has, such as preventing people from profiting off of theft and reducing gold supply.

 

[Henry.5713]

Everyone has their own subjective definition of the word "fair". Which makes this my subjective point of view but I consider it to be beneficial to all sides.

Trade gold to gems and never spend a buck if you are that type, a safe way to "buy" gold while also directly supporting the game you play for others and a money maker for ArenaNet as well as one of the only truely effective ways to fight RMT (gold selling, bots, etc.). All of that combined with a supply-demand system to regulate the market value of gems automatically makes it one of the most elegant systems of it's kind that I have seen at least.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > > I don't have to make it stick; Chris Lee of Hawaii and other legislators are going to make it stick for me. What the SWB case demonstrates is that people already think the same way I'm explaining it. Not everyone, certainly, but you can't even get everyone to agree that the Earth isn't flat. =)

> >

> > And once they make it stick, we can discuss that scenario. Until then, stick to current facts and given legislation without mixing your personal opinion in as fact or given.

>

> You're arguing semantics; I gave you an example where an authority of a sort used the same semantics I did. That's valid and factual.

>

> I'm officially signing off this thread. It's sucked up way too much of my time.

 

First off, I was not the one bringing in the loot box situation, you did. I merely decided to not let you connect a so negative stigma topic to the issue at hand pointing out your mistakes and flaws in your argument.

 

Second, semantics are usually 90% of what decides court cases and are the entire corner stone of legislation (sometimes being as strict as having a single word decide meaning over an entire contract). Something you'd be aware of if you were as versed as you state.

 

Finally, you gave an example of the goals an authority figure currently has (some of them at least), that alone should tell you that this is not legally binding yet since change is a current goal. If it were already legislation, said authority figure would not be striving for change. That is factual, but not valid to this discussion to back your claims. A difference I'd say.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

Some people seem to believe that one's "personal" definition of fairness matters to a discussion of the fairness of this business practice. That's not really relevant to the discussion. Fairness is a societal construct. The fact that a discussion is taking place about the fairness of the exchange is a perfect example.

 

So, what's so about fairness in relation to commodities exchanges in western society?

 

+ Anyone who visits an exchange at a particular moment in time sees the same rate. This means it is impartial, with no favoritism or discrimination. That's fair.

+ Commodity exchanges are under no societal obligation to see to it that if one buys commodity X, one can immediately sell commodity X and break even (or profit). That's fair in the world at large, so it is also fair in the game.

+ In commodities exchanges, rates change based on supply and demand. This is accepted in other venues. It also seems to be true in game. The amount of gold needed to get a fixed amount of gems goes up when there is something new in the store, and down during dry periods. Also, the amount of gems needed to obtain a fixed amount of gold tends to increase when something requiring a lot of gold -- like the griffon -- is released. Looks like supply and demand. That's fair, and just.

+ Businesses levy fees. Sometimes the fee is part of the sale price. Sometimes it is a separate line item. Sometimes it's applied by the exchange, sometimes by the broker. Which of those applies is irrelevant to fairness or justice. Yes, added fees increase the price of whatever is being purchased. So what? Higher prices are disadvantageous? Personal advantage is neither a fairness nor a justice issue.

+ Consumers have the right to control their own spending. True in the world at large, especially with regard to luxury items. True in the game.

 

So, where does one's personal take on morality or fairness come in? Without societal agreement, one's personal morality can only influence one's own behavior. People are of course free to debate using their personal definition of fairness as a starting point. However, someone's personal morality only matters to the group if general agreement can be reached. Based on the above bullet points, the argument in favor of, "Not fair." has a lot to do.

[shopt.1730]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> **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.)

>

 

I agree with most of the points you have made in this thread, but I'm not sure zero/low fee exchange would necessarily increase volatility. In most other markets, these arbitragers tend to smooth out the price and kill off the very cycle they were profiting off. Having said that, speculators could cause all sorts of problems with low fees. Whether the cyclic arbitragers or speculation frenzy would win out isn't obvious to me.