Is it time to finally remove the gems (RL money) --> gold conversion?

[IndigoSundown.5419]

This is just another attempt to deprive ANet of some of the revenue they use to produce the game based on the misguided belief that there is some sort of competition involved in gearing up in Ascended, or in getting a gaudy weapon skin. If -- to be able to have fun -- you require knowing that some random other players don't have things that you do, then be consoled with the knowledge that there certainly are such players in the game.

[MarshallLaw.9260]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> Hello all,

>

> Without beating around the bush, let me get straight to the point. The current system allows players to buy a vast majority of the BiS gear parts (ascended mats) and buy anything from the TP including endgame goals like 1st gen legendaries (still isn't account bound) and other rare infusions. What's the point in cosmetic endgame and a gear treadmill if players can straight buy them with real life cash? This gives way for pay-to-win arguments which I absolutely hate to see. Endgame goals/gear should NEVER be available with real life money.

>

> Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

>

> Why is it a problem? Because it helps promoting the opposite of an MMORPG is supposed to do i.e to make the player earn the prestigious skins and top gears (statistically). 1st gen legendaries being not account bound is criminal. So are ALL ascended mats not being account bound. **The core problem always lied and still lies in the money --> gold conversion. **

>

> This kind of conversion system have killed games (which I will not name) in this very genre where gold plays a vital role gear acquisition and/or skins.

>

> P.S. I am perfectly fine with removal of gold --> gems as well. It's a B2P game after all.

 

GW2 has run with this model for 6 years with no real problems within the mass population. With all due respect you don't have the evidence (and neither do I) to prove the scale of this. We could be talking about a very insignificant % of players who specifically buy gems to purchase ascended mats for gold. Legendaries, I can agree would be a higher portion perhaps but overall it's really not affecting other people that much so I don't see the issue.

 

Consider this - "you could grind/farm for weeks to save up for that special item or use the income from an hour of IRL work to get to the same place".

Because people are in different situations, having the freedom to choose is fantastic. If you were someone who loved the game but could not dedicate enough time to acquire the best items, you may feel left out and that there was no way to fully enjoy the experience as someone able to put in hours on GW2 daily.

Remember this is a casual MMO, marketed to a fairly wide audience.

I agree with other posters regarding the goldseller issue - they become far more enticing (if the exchange is removed) and it's perhaps a slippery slope for some. I also agree that this would not be good for the game at this stage. Players are used to this system and many veteran could be put off entirely from playing the game if they could not convert gems and gold freely (tax included).

.

I understand your reasoning, you're bothered by the concept, but it would be far worse for game population and development funding if the feature was removed.

In addition, the P2W argument isn't really valid in GW2 so people who pipe up with it have little understanding of what P2W actually involves.

[Hot Boy.7138]

No. this game has to make money. How else will we continue to get updates and new content?

[GwAddict.9746]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > Hello all,

> >

> > Without beating around the bush, let me get straight to the point. The current system allows players to buy a vast majority of the BiS gear parts (ascended mats) and buy anything from the TP including endgame goals like 1st gen legendaries (still isn't account bound) and other rare infusions. What's the point in cosmetic endgame and a gear treadmill if players can straight buy them with real life cash? This gives way for pay-to-win arguments which I absolutely hate to see. Endgame goals/gear should NEVER be available with real life money.

> >

> > Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

> >

> > Why is it a problem? Because it helps promoting the opposite of an MMORPG is supposed to do i.e to make the player earn the prestigious skins and top gears (statistically). 1st gen legendaries being not account bound is criminal. So are ALL ascended mats not being account bound. **The core problem always lied and still lies in the money --> gold conversion. **

> >

> > This kind of conversion system have killed games (which I will not name) in this very genre where gold plays a vital role gear acquisition and/or skins.

> >

> > P.S. I am perfectly fine with removal of gold --> gems as well. It's a B2P game after all.

>

> First, the system is not going to change.

>

> Second, you didn’t think about what Anet will need to do to make up for lost revenue... Your “B2P game after all” will turn into mandatory monthly user fees under your idea.

>

> Third, we had these similar arguments of “game will be killed” back in 2012 and 2013... And as far as I know, the game is still here last time I checked.

>

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Ascended_equipment

>

> “Ascended equipment types were released in separate releases:

> ▪ Rings and back items were introduced with The Lost Shores and were originally available only in Fractals of the Mists (November 16, 2012)

> ▪ Amulets were introduced with Flame and Frost: Prelude (January 28, 2013)

> ▪ Accessories were introduced with Flame and Frost: The Gathering Storm (February 26, 2013)

> ▪ Weapons were introduced with Super Adventure Box: Back to School (September 3, 2013)

> ▪ Armor was introduced with A Very Merry Wintersday (December 10, 2013)

> ▪ Breathers were introduced with Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns (October 23, 2015).”

 

Rings, Back items, amulets or any trinket can't be purchased with gold, so that's an invalid point. They are either tied to laurels or map currency or raid/pvp/wvw currency.

On the other hand, weapons and armor are much more of a gold sinks (in form of mats) than the trinkets are.

 

Going by your second argument, why not start selling legendary armor/backpieces/trinket (after making them all non-account bound) and all other cosmetic earnable ingame like raids/fractal armor/weapons directly in gemstore? I'm sure that'd increase Anet revenue even more, right?

 

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

sPvP is played without ascended. Only higher level fractals need acended and players get more than they need from drops. WvW is more about skill than the tiny boost from ascended gear. A player can play in WvW with a char with full ascended gear and get his rump handed to him by someone in full exotics.

 

It’s not the problem that the OP imagines it is.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> Hello all,

>

> Without beating around the bush, let me get straight to the point. The current system allows players to buy a vast majority of the BiS gear parts (ascended mats) and buy anything from the TP including endgame goals like 1st gen legendaries (still isn't account bound) and other rare infusions. What's the point in cosmetic endgame and a gear treadmill if players can straight buy them with real life cash? This gives way for pay-to-win arguments which I absolutely hate to see. Endgame goals/gear should NEVER be available with real life money.

>

> Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

>

> Why is it a problem? Because it helps promoting the opposite of an MMORPG is supposed to do i.e to make the player earn the prestigious skins and top gears (statistically). 1st gen legendaries being not account bound is criminal. So are ALL ascended mats not being account bound. **The core problem always lied and still lies in the money --> gold conversion. **

>

> This kind of conversion system have killed games (which I will not name) in this very genre where gold plays a vital role gear acquisition and/or skins.

>

> P.S. I am perfectly fine with removal of gold --> gems as well. It's a B2P game after all.

 

Let's be realistic here, removing gold -> gems conversion would maybe kill this game. It is B2P yes however, the ability to purchase gem store items without the need to pay real money is a very important factor for the success of the game. The reason I'm talking about gold -> gems is because I kind of agree with you that the gems -> gold conversion has many drawbacks and I don't personally like that it exist, however, that conversion cannot work without also having gold -> gems, and that last one cannot be removed without killing the game. You cannot remove one and keep the other, so although I dislike gems -> gold, it's necessary in order to keep gold -> gems alive, and without it the game will die.

 

Plus, it has been like this since release and until now I've not seen any such complaints about it.

[Algreg.3629]

all arguments I see from you is what things should not be in your opinion, with frequent allusions to those mysterious games that had a p2w model and what happened to them. This will not change. Give it up, move along. If Anet closes GW2 one day, you can jump in bombastically and telling us all how this was the reason and how you were correct. Until then, this is a futile topic.

[Healix.5819]

The only way they could remove the exchange at this point is by pretending they're abandoning the entire gem store, otherwise it would cause a severe backlash. Of course they'd just add an entirely new cash shop a year later. Even if they wanted to remove it, they probably wouldn't bother until GW3, which is the only easy way to make major changes.

[GwAddict.9746]

> @"Hot Boy.7138" said:

> No. this game has to make money. How else will we continue to get updates and new content?

 

By making money from selling cosmetics and ingame services like they do already. All glider skins (except the 3 legendary ones), mount skins and outfits are gemstore only items. All account services are also tied to it like bank tabs, character slots, inventory slots, copper fed kit, etc. Also living story episodes.

 

 

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > Hello all,

> >

> > Without beating around the bush, let me get straight to the point. The current system allows players to buy a vast majority of the BiS gear parts (ascended mats) and buy anything from the TP including endgame goals like 1st gen legendaries (still isn't account bound) and other rare infusions. What's the point in cosmetic endgame and a gear treadmill if players can straight buy them with real life cash? This gives way for pay-to-win arguments which I absolutely hate to see. Endgame goals/gear should NEVER be available with real life money.

> >

> > Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

> >

> > Why is it a problem? Because it helps promoting the opposite of an MMORPG is supposed to do i.e to make the player earn the prestigious skins and top gears (statistically). 1st gen legendaries being not account bound is criminal. So are ALL ascended mats not being account bound. **The core problem always lied and still lies in the money --> gold conversion. **

> >

> > This kind of conversion system have killed games (which I will not name) in this very genre where gold plays a vital role gear acquisition and/or skins.

> >

> > P.S. I am perfectly fine with removal of gold --> gems as well. It's a B2P game after all.

>

> Let's be realistic here, removing gold -> gems conversion would maybe kill this game. It is B2P yes however, the ability to purchase gem store items without the need to pay real money is a very important factor for the success of the game. The reason I'm talking about gold -> gems is because I kind of agree with you that the gems -> gold conversion has many drawbacks and I don't personally like that it exist, however, that conversion cannot work without also having gold -> gems, and that last one cannot be removed without killing the game. You cannot remove one and keep the other, so although I dislike gems -> gold, it's necessary in order to keep gold -> gems alive, and without it the game will die.

>

> Plus, it has been like this since release and until now I've not seen any such complaints about it.

 

I'd say this entire conversion system has been extremely detterent to the game in the long run and was a big mistake that I believe can be rectified by removing it entirely. Anet needs revenue to survive, yes, but going by the inflation of gold/gems conversion over 6 years, it's clear that far more people convert gold to gems than vice versa. In other words, if this system never existed it'd have been more beneficial to Anet in the long run, giving them more revenue from selling these account services with real money. On the other hand, getting ingame gold with real money almost kills the motivation for many players since everyone can have anything if they are rich enough and throws enough money. I have friends personally who stopped playing after finding out that ingame gold can be purchased with real life money and being a MMO, amount of wealth do matter to everyone in the game.

[GwAddict.9746]

> @"Algreg.3629" said:

> all arguments I see from you is what things should not be in your opinion, with frequent allusions to those **mysterious games that had a p2w model and what happened to them**. This will not change. Give it up, move along. If Anet closes GW2 one day, you can jump in bombastically and telling us all how this was the reason and how you were correct. Until then, this is a futile topic.

 

Please look up what happened to Archeage if you wanna actually know.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > @"Hot Boy.7138" said:

> > No. this game has to make money. How else will we continue to get updates and new content?

>

> By making money from selling cosmetics and ingame services like they do already. All glider skins (except the 3 legendary ones), mount skins and outfits are gemstore only items. All account services are also tied to it like bank tabs, character slots, inventory slots, copper fed kit, etc. Also living story episodes.

>

>

>

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > > Hello all,

> > >

> > > Without beating around the bush, let me get straight to the point. The current system allows players to buy a vast majority of the BiS gear parts (ascended mats) and buy anything from the TP including endgame goals like 1st gen legendaries (still isn't account bound) and other rare infusions. What's the point in cosmetic endgame and a gear treadmill if players can straight buy them with real life cash? This gives way for pay-to-win arguments which I absolutely hate to see. Endgame goals/gear should NEVER be available with real life money.

> > >

> > > Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

> > >

> > > Why is it a problem? Because it helps promoting the opposite of an MMORPG is supposed to do i.e to make the player earn the prestigious skins and top gears (statistically). 1st gen legendaries being not account bound is criminal. So are ALL ascended mats not being account bound. **The core problem always lied and still lies in the money --> gold conversion. **

> > >

> > > This kind of conversion system have killed games (which I will not name) in this very genre where gold plays a vital role gear acquisition and/or skins.

> > >

> > > P.S. I am perfectly fine with removal of gold --> gems as well. It's a B2P game after all.

> >

> > Let's be realistic here, removing gold -> gems conversion would maybe kill this game. It is B2P yes however, the ability to purchase gem store items without the need to pay real money is a very important factor for the success of the game. The reason I'm talking about gold -> gems is because I kind of agree with you that the gems -> gold conversion has many drawbacks and I don't personally like that it exist, however, that conversion cannot work without also having gold -> gems, and that last one cannot be removed without killing the game. You cannot remove one and keep the other, so although I dislike gems -> gold, it's necessary in order to keep gold -> gems alive, and without it the game will die.

> >

> > Plus, it has been like this since release and until now I've not seen any such complaints about it.

>

> I'd say this entire conversion system has been extremely detterent to the game in the long run and was a big mistake that I believe can be rectified by removing it entirely. Anet needs revenue to survive, yes, but going by the inflation of gold/gems conversion over 6 years, **it's clear that far more people convert gold to gems than vice versa**. In other words, if this system never existed it'd have been more beneficial to Anet in the long run, giving them more revenue from selling these account services with real money. On the other hand, getting ingame gold with real money almost kills the motivation for many players since everyone can have anything if they are rich enough and throws enough money. I have friends personally who stopped playing after finding out that ingame gold can be purchased with real life money and being a MMO, amount of wealth do matter to everyone in the game.

 

Gems<—>gold is reciprocal.

 

Players buy gems and put them in the gem pool and pull out gold from the gold pool. Players put gold in the gold pool and pull gems from the gem pool. If more players are buying gems with gold then the gems in the gem pool would decrease and the price of gold to gems would increase. As this [Graph shows](https://www.gw2tp.com/gems) the prices have remained stable for a long time. There are not more people buying one than the other.

[Mourningcry.9428]

No.

 

It wouldn't be a far leap to presume that this would steer those wishing to buy gold to do so from third parties instead. Which, would either mean Anet would need to extend resources to counter this, otherwise it become rampant or allow it, which would be bad for obvious reasons.

 

A literal waste of resources in addition to incurred costs at a loss of income.

 

[Hesacon.8735]

I make enough money in-game where buying gems from other players makes sense to me. I want gems and they want gold. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > > Hello all,

> > >

> > > Without beating around the bush, let me get straight to the point. The current system allows players to buy a vast majority of the BiS gear parts (ascended mats) and buy anything from the TP including endgame goals like 1st gen legendaries (still isn't account bound) and other rare infusions. What's the point in cosmetic endgame and a gear treadmill if players can straight buy them with real life cash? This gives way for pay-to-win arguments which I absolutely hate to see. Endgame goals/gear should NEVER be available with real life money.

> > >

> > > Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

> > >

> > > Why is it a problem? Because it helps promoting the opposite of an MMORPG is supposed to do i.e to make the player earn the prestigious skins and top gears (statistically). 1st gen legendaries being not account bound is criminal. So are ALL ascended mats not being account bound. **The core problem always lied and still lies in the money --> gold conversion. **

> > >

> > > This kind of conversion system have killed games (which I will not name) in this very genre where gold plays a vital role gear acquisition and/or skins.

> > >

> > > P.S. I am perfectly fine with removal of gold --> gems as well. It's a B2P game after all.

> >

> > First, the system is not going to change.

> >

> > Second, you didn’t think about what Anet will need to do to make up for lost revenue... Your “B2P game after all” will turn into mandatory monthly user fees under your idea.

> >

> > Third, we had these similar arguments of “game will be killed” back in 2012 and 2013... And as far as I know, the game is still here last time I checked.

> >

> > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Ascended_equipment

> >

> > “Ascended equipment types were released in separate releases:

> > ▪ Rings and back items were introduced with The Lost Shores and were originally available only in Fractals of the Mists (November 16, 2012)

> > ▪ Amulets were introduced with Flame and Frost: Prelude (January 28, 2013)

> > ▪ Accessories were introduced with Flame and Frost: The Gathering Storm (February 26, 2013)

> > ▪ Weapons were introduced with Super Adventure Box: Back to School (September 3, 2013)

> > ▪ Armor was introduced with A Very Merry Wintersday (December 10, 2013)

> > ▪ Breathers were introduced with Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns (October 23, 2015).”

>

> Rings, Back items, amulets or any trinket can't be purchased with gold, so that's an invalid point. They are either tied to laurels or map currency or raid/pvp/wvw currency.

> On the other hand, weapons and armor are much more of a gold sinks (in form of mats) than the trinkets are.

>

> Going by your second argument, why not start selling legendary armor/backpieces/trinket (after making them all non-account bound) and all other cosmetic earnable ingame like raids/fractal armor/weapons directly in gemstore? I'm sure that'd increase Anet revenue even more, right?

>

 

You are missing key points. The system won't change. This game would turn into P2P and THAT would be the real game killer. The arguments you are brining up we already had in 2012 and the devs went ahead anyway, and the game is still standing despite your claims.

 

[blambidy.3216]

I would only agree only (if) legendaries was a higher tier then ascended. But since they are they same.... To be honest taking the gold to gems conversion off, and the gems to gold off conversion hurts the game more then it would make the game better.

 

I mean, might as well take off the whole tp in the first place. (Sarcasm). Nothing in this game is pay to win. once you buy expansions, thats all you need to buy. You can farm gold to get legendaries. Farm fractals for ascended gear and gold. Farm hardened leather for gold, Etc. I mean sooooo what? Buying infusions to go to t4s? Some people just dont like to do things over and over again. Most people just want to play 1-2 hours and get off. And thats fine. Let them do what they gotta do.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> I'd say this entire conversion system has been extremely detterent to the game in the long run and was a big mistake that I believe can be rectified by removing it entirely. Anet needs revenue to survive, yes, but going by the inflation of gold/gems conversion over 6 years, it's clear that far more people convert gold to gems than vice versa. In other words, **if this system never existed it'd have been more beneficial to Anet in the long run, giving them more revenue from selling these account services with real money**. On the other hand, getting ingame gold with real money almost kills the motivation for many players since everyone can have anything if they are rich enough and throws enough money. I have friends personally who stopped playing after finding out that ingame gold can be purchased with real life money and being a MMO, amount of wealth do matter to everyone in the game.

 

You're assuming everyone who buys gems with gold would buy all the same items with real money if gold wasn't an option. I think it's unlikely that's the case.

 

I can't speak for anyone else but I use both: sometimes I buy gems with real money and sometimes I buy them with gold. When I buy them with gold it's because I want something which I think isn't worth the real money cost. If buying it with gold wasn't an option I just wouldn't buy it.

 

(And yes, I know that in most cases it's quicker to earn real-money than to earn gold so to some people that seems illogical. There's a lot more things I can do with real money, many of which I prefer to virtual items. On top of that I get gold while I'm playing the game, which I'd do anyway - I rarely farm gold, so what I have is just what I get while having fun, it's basically free to me. Between those two spending gold is preferable to spending real money for me.)

[Randulf.7614]

The opinion on this is largely irrelevant. Anet, with their metrics and greater industry knowledge than any one of us, are in a vastly superior place to judge the success of the system. If there was an issue, the situation would have changed long ago.

[Game of Bones.8975]

It would be a problem if you could buy weapons and armor with stats higher than those you can craft or earn while gaming.

 

I believe that only skins can be bought directly for gems.

 

I think it's also why only Gen1 Legendary weapons are sold on the TP (which have the same stats of their ascended counterparts).

 

There isn't enough of an advantage given to people who buy mats to those who harvest them. I sell mats as well as buy them with gold transferred by gems.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Game of Bones.8975" said:

> I think it's also why only Gen1 Legendary weapons are sold on the TP (which have the same stats of their ascended counterparts).

 

All legendaries have the same stats as ascended, no matter what generation they are.

 

If I remember correctly they said making Gen 1 legendaries tradable was an oversight - no one considered the implications of them being unbound on creation. And by the time they decided it was a bad idea it was too well established - people had already sold, or bought, legendaries and they decided changing it would upset more people than it would please.

 

But when they started making new ones they made them account bound, so if people want to make sure everyone knows they made their legendary they have an option. (And because new legendaries was part of the expansion and they wanted players to buy the expansion to get the items as well as the content.)

[DeadlySynz.3471]

A BiS item is only marginally better than an exotic to the point it has no bearing on the match unless you 2 find 2 equal classes with 2 equal builds on a level playing field that somehow manages equal strokes of lucks on attacks. You'll never find that anywhere. At least from a WvW perspective, it really makes no difference whether you are in greens or ascended. Ascended isn't going to save you from a melee train of 20 running over you in blues; nor is your ascended going to help you as you try to pew pew through a bunch of players in greens dropping reflects.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

Yeah one time I was in WvW all alone. I rounded a corner and was face to face with a zerg of opposing players. I slaughtered them. Down to the last one. Thank you ascended gear!

 

Ok. It was during a dream but it was a really, really realistic dream.

 

What actually happened was I was in a 3 to one fight and I only was downed twice before the 3 of us killed the solo player. /grin.

 

In this game skill matters far more than gear stats, especially the small difference between exotic and ascended.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > As far as gear, who cares? Longterm every dedicated player will have multiple sets anyway. If new players want to skip grind or rather spend money on getting gold instead of grinding due to limited playtime, so what?

>

> You do realize this is exactly what Pay-to-win is, right? Being able to "skip" the grind by paying real life money instead of encouraging them to play to get Best in slot gear? Do you realize what happened to other games in this MMORPG genre which employed the same exact thing?

>

 

All I realize is you redefining what pay to win means. Pay to win often refers to mechanics and advantages which can not be gained without purchasing them for real money or which are so restrictive that they are close to not obtainable via in game means. Thus creating a necessity of spending money to stay competative.

 

If you think that a couple of hours to attain maximum ascended gear in an MMO can be considered pay to win if skipped, you should not be playing MMOs in the first place. In a game where 95% of the content does not even require (or is balanced around) this gear level non the less.

 

The biggest advantages in GW2 are actually from convenience items which are attainable via gems. Gear is absolutely insignificant gold and reward wise.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> 1) Gold sellers already sell gold at a much cheaper price on 3rd party website incase if you're unaware so it's not uncommon at all.

Apparently you're actually unaware that the goal isn't to _eliminate_ illicit gold. It's to reduce the incentive for people to do it.

 

ANet knows that there will always be people willing to risk their account to save a few bucks; that's not the target of the mechanic. The point is to make so people like me aren't tempted, because we have an officially-approved source to jump start out gold reserves. There's plenty of research and economic evidence that supports this.

 

> This doesn't give Anet the excuse to sell gold (and the rewards bought with gold) directly for real life cash.

It's not "an excuse." It's a business decision to prevent something worse than "devaluing their own in-game rewards": people losing their accounts to fraud & theft, to reduce the amount of losses due to people buying illicit gold and then leaving the game. (The two are linked.)

 

> Because Anet is devaluing their own ingame rewards by allowing rich players to buy through everything available on TP (including BiS gear in legendaries and ascended mats).

My rewards aren't devalued. And, you might not be aware, but lots of rewards introduced since launch, _including the new legendaries_, cannot be acquired through credit card alone.

 

> 2) Gold seller will exist with or without Anet removing this or not.

How is this different from your point (1)?

 

> And whether it'll cost Anet money is another debate since it'll also remove the gold --> gems conversion and going by the inflation over the years it's apparent that far more people convert gold --> gems than vice versa. So they could be spending real life money to buy gem store stuffs instead of using ingame gold.

What inflation? If you look at the patterns of gold:gem exchange, you'll see that largely, each year, the rates stay the same. What spikes the conversion is when ANet introduces something new and, most of the time, rates return to the old equilibrium. The exceptions have nothing to do with "inflation."

 

>

> 3) It doesn't have to be common or uncommon to "prove" anything here.

You're contending that ANet's mechanics haven't reduced the temptation of illicit gold — that requires proof.

 

> The fact is that the option is there is what is disturbing because it just devalues everything.

How? My rewards aren't devalued if you whip out your plastic. Why are yours devalued if I use mine?

 

> This is an MMO and it directly/indirectly affects other people in the sense if the said items are valuable or not. What's the point of playing and working so hard towards something if I know someone can swipe CC and get it instantly?

That's a good question. If you think the answer is, "because hardly anyone else has it," then it seems to me that it is you who is devaluing your own effort.

 

Like... I can make a stellar dinner for friends. And my neighbor can credit card the same food from a professional chef and serve it up as if it's their own. How is my meal devalued by theirs? I know what I accomplished, my neighbors knows what a credit card made possible.

 

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I don't think most of the playerbase feels the same about this topic as the OP. Regardless, no matter the OP's argument, I am pretty darn sure that ArenaNet isn't going to remove the Gems-to-Gold exchange, nor the Gold-to-Gems exchange. In fact, rather than being a deterrent, the exchanges are one of the more attractive features of the game for players.

 

Thus, no; it's not time to remove the exchange, nor will it ever be.

[STIHL.2489]

What's the worst that happens if this gets put in? I mean really, lets be honest, Anet has implemented some really bad ideas already, would it really kill them to remove the Gold/Gem trade?