126 replies to this topic

[Daesu]

I agree the TP is a huge gold sink and whenever you list an item to sell, unless you sell instantly at the max offer price, you can never guarantee that you wont be undercut in the future, even if you sell at a new min sale price.  And for you to re-list it means taking the hit on your original listing fee + your new listing fee, so you see a lot of people are stuck with their items in the TP for months, without a hope of a sale.

The usual excuse the fanboys give for the gold sinks is that they are necessary to curb inflation.  But does that mean the more gold sinks the better it is for the economy?  I don't think so, there has to be a limit and this is too much.  ArenaNet has to nudge us to buy gems for gold to prop up their revenue somehow.

Edited by Daesu, 13 January 2013 - 09:06 PM.

[sevalaricgirl]

Darkobra, on 13 January 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

All my gold is legit. Not buying gems

Those who buy gems no matter what they are doing it for are supporting the game so you who don't want to support ANet get more content.  People don't work for free.  The devs, the ANet support staff, they are not working for free.  If people didn't shop in the gem store or trade gems for gold, you would not be playing because they'd eventually not be able to support the servers or any new content.

[Darkobra]

sevalaricgirl, on 14 January 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

Those who buy gems no matter what they are doing it for are supporting the game so you who don't want to support ANet get more content.  People don't work for free.  The devs, the ANet support staff, they are not working for free.  If people didn't shop in the gem store or trade gems for gold, you would not be playing because they'd eventually not be able to support the servers or any new content.

I think by being with GW1 since its beta, buying every collector's edition expansion, buying the original GW1 twice JUST for its soundtrack with the second purchase, buying a costume in it and then buying GW2 is enough of my money.

I also had FAR more gameplay with GW1 than I ever did GW2. I have milked GW2 and quit by late November. I have everything and have done everything. Now I'm playing other games and waiting for the big promised update. They want my money? They better earn it like they did with GW1. If it was to cease to exist and never be online again, I wouldn't miss it.

They don't work for free. That's why they sell the game. The buy to play model works and they have proven that with GW1.

[d_fens]

Emmesty, on 12 January 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Territory sovereignty doesn't apply when regarding the laws enforced on property of the nationality of origin.  You can send any legal complaint you want through a judicial system, but the terms are filed and protected under U.S. statute and any user is susceptible to the denial of access to the property owned or leased by the protected party.  Skinny of it is you own the client but they own the server and can deny access to whoever they want within the context of the contract.  Law still has an objective standard even if people try to make it appear as if it's subjective.

I think my wording was not the most accurate. What I meant is, if ANet is offering a service in EU (and they do: german servers, french servers, official retailers selling the game, they charge for gems in euro so they have to pay taxes in EU, etc), they have to respect EU customer laws. If they violate EU law, certain powers (in theory) can ban them in EU countries. Also, obligation to show full EULA in EU falls on retailer, not game developer/publisher. The one who sells the game must do so. 'Contract' is only valid, if available before money is paid.
Laws concerning digital goods are still in early stages. Hopefully ppl in charge of law creation will be competent. Some regulations are already in place: e.g. RAF from WoW being ruled illegal in many EU countries ( Blizzard had to block it in Poland and some other countries).

[Arquenya]

sevalaricgirl, on 14 January 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

Those who buy gems no matter what they are doing it for are supporting the game so you who don't want to support ANet get more content.  People don't work for free.  The devs, the ANet support staff, they are not working for free.  If people didn't shop in the gem store or trade gems for gold, you would not be playing because they'd eventually not be able to support the servers or any new content.

Funny point

But yes, if it wasn't for the players that bought gems to sell them for gold, either hardcore players that can't grind the gold for their legendaries fast enough, casual players that want to keep up with their friends or otherwise, we wouldn't be able to buy gems for gold at all.

The question remains however, how much money goes to game support and updates and how much money goes to the pockets of the owners and shareholders like NCSoft and the cash shop company (I forgot its name). If you calculate 3 million copies sold plus gem shop revenues, it´s easily $200-400 million they have earned in the past 6 months. How much does a company actually need to make, update and maintain a game?

[ReMarkable91]

Interesting , they also mailed me first friday after ban with that they would look into that some persons requested refund and who had rights for it. I mailed them letting them know I still prefer an unban wich I think I deserve. See I didn't use the mithril version I used the Orichalcum version wich never had crazy shifts in prices or made any high profit(even lost 1 G cause of bad luck perhaps?).
My ticket for it is still under review but if I won't get an answer tonight I will probaly start contacting Paypal. I also purchased extra gems (for 50 euro so 105 euro total) , and the harsh part is on the day of the ban it was 48 days after purchase. To make an claim urself trough a system paypal gives you an 45 day period. If I would have been insta banned I could had opened a case trough paypals system now gotta contact and wait for reply.

[Ardeni]

Lordkrall, on 12 January 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Or maybe it is a good idea to not abuse something that clearly is not intended?

Sure, if we only knew what is "clearly not intended". This bug certainly wasn't.

[Lordkrall]

Ardeni, on 19 January 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

Sure, if we only knew what is "clearly not intended". This bug certainly wasn't.

So it is not clear that crafting something and getting MORE stuff back from salvageing it is not intended?

[Strawberry Nubcake]

Super easy money and gear upgrades in an MMO?  Obviously intended!  

[xarallei]

Desild, on 11 January 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

I won't gloat on your misery, but it was mighty decent of them to refund you those gems. Not sure if Blizzard would be so kind if this were in a different game.

Just to show how ruthless Anet is with their bans. Thousands that walk on the fringe of what is legal and legit gold making activities, but if you have tha gall of crossing that fringe, you can bet there will be consequences.

Blizz would never have banned to begin with. Whenever something like this is in the game they just do a roll back and take away whatever it is you got. At most they give suspensions (the last big one I remember was when all those guilds were abusing the LFR when it first came out to get more gear and get the jump on progression).

[ReMarkable91]

Lordkrall, on 19 January 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

So it is not clear that crafting something and getting MORE stuff back from salvageing it is not intended?

So crafting 80 rares and salvaging them to get more/better stuff back is not intended? I am pretty sure it is.
But oké the mithril version gave way to much profit first days that should have waked them up.

For me it is kinda bitter I used the non profitable orichalcum version and made an avarage loss after 100 salvages and still got banned =/. There is no way I could have thought it was an exploit without looking at forums where the mithril version was being discussed. Worst part is support denies to support me and won't give me answers why I also got perma banned =/.

They just refunded my 105 euros to try to make me shut up or something...

[Baldur The Bold]

In a game that uses real money in its' economy; it is up to the developer to implement safeguards against exploits, scams and other ingame shortcuts to gain access to said monies. Inability to protect their own system falls directly on Anet.

Having the end user pay for developer errors opens a can of worms. It makes the player feel that they are unsure of what is safe and not safe. Can I salvage this or will I get banned? Can I use this shortcut by jumping over a cliff to gain access to an area or will I get banned? Were these ingame things intentional or not?

In the end any issues which are due to negligence from the developer should not result in bans.
I understand that some exploits are common sense issues. ie. armbrace/exotic mini duplication from gw1. These are exploits that perhaps should result in suspension of the account and/or removal of ill gotten gains. But the grey area of exploits is one that should concern all people who play this game.

On a side note if I posted this on the official forum would I get banned?

Edited by Baldur The Bold, 19 January 2013 - 04:31 PM.

[WinterSnowblind]

DuskWolf, on 12 January 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

I'll keep saying this...

These bans are the fault of no one but ArenaNet. They let a bug slip into their game that would have been caught in hours if they'd had a public test shard. Seriously, every other MMO has one, even distinctly more indie companies do; Cryptic had one when their first MMO launched (Champions Online). One of the eariest MMOs, Ultima Online, had one. Why is it acceptable that GW2 doesn't? I don't think it is.

While I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have one, I imagine the choice not to, is because they don't want to ruin the games story content and events.  The Lost Shores was an absolute disaster, but they obviously wanted to tell a story with it and have it feel like a big, one time only, reactive event that people playing could be a part of.  Having thousands of people playing and testing it before it "really happened" would greatly diminish that.  ..Of course, the event falling apart because of technical problems diminished that too, but I can see why they don't want to do any public testing.

I can also understand why they're handing out such severe punishments for exploiters too, although I do think there's probably a better way of handling it than outright perma banning people.

Edited by WinterSnowblind, 19 January 2013 - 05:00 PM.

[Ardeni]

Lordkrall, on 19 January 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

So it is not clear that crafting something and getting MORE stuff back from salvageing it is not intended?

Yes, it isn't. You don't get more stuff back, but different stuff back. As far as I know, you needed some mithril and a pristine snowflake to craft the earring. You got some (less) mithril and ectos back. It isn't clear that this provides you profit if 1) the price of the pristine snowflakes gets close to the price of ectos (they could always have made them rare) or 2) the price of ectos decreases. You can't know whether either of these were Arenanet's intentions on the first day(s) of the event. You couldn't have known it before Arenanet made the first changes to the recipe (I don't even know when).

Due to this everybody was in one of these categories:

1) Found out the recipe and thought that it's legal to use it as it requires no bug abuse (if you even thought about it).
2) Found the recipe but chose not to use it since it could have been abuse.
3) Found the recipe but didn't care about it.
4) Didn't know about the recipe.

Obviously people in groups 2-4 are the winners in this case. I was lucky to be in group 4. I would say that only a small minority of people actually think "could this be abuse?" every time when they find a way of making money. So, like I said earlier, in future it is for the best to avoid everything new until it has been declared a ban-proof activity. This goes for everything that could provide you gold, anyways.

[AlixIcebane]

They make a flawed system, people get banned for simply being smarter than the devs...

[Desild]

xarallei, on 19 January 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Blizz would never have banned to begin with. Whenever something like this is in the game they just do a roll back and take away whatever it is you got. At most they give suspensions (the last big one I remember was when all those guilds were abusing the LFR when it first came out to get more gear and get the jump on progression).

You clearly misunderstood my point. Blizzard would NEVER go out of their way and refund you for whatever microtransactions you made in their game, if you were banned due to wrong doings. I'm not even sure if they refund at all!

But yes, Blizzard is more linient when giving out their bans, saving them only for incorrible behavior or gruesome exploitation. Anet on the other hand, bans on a tip of a hat.

[Soulless]

And who's fault was it that the exploits were available in the first place? Programmers should really check their codes. If a coin changing machine thinks my dollar is a 10 dollar bill, I'd gladly take advantage of it.

[Trei]

Soulless, on 21 January 2013 - 02:21 AM, said:

And who's fault was it that the exploits were available in the first place? Programmers should really check their codes. If a coin changing machine thinks my dollar is a 10 dollar bill, I'd gladly take advantage of it.

Whoa...   epiphany!
You should then exploit the heck out of that coin changing machine's error until its empty, yup.

We should all do that.
Then there will be no errors in the world.

[Lordkrall]

Soulless, on 21 January 2013 - 02:21 AM, said:

And who's fault was it that the exploits were available in the first place? Programmers should really check their codes. If a coin changing machine thinks my dollar is a 10 dollar bill, I'd gladly take advantage of it.

And you really think you would be able to walk away from that with any kind of punishment if the bank found it out?

[XPhiler]

I think people are a bit too confident that EULA have no value in the EU. The reason why there is that believe stems from the shrinkwrap issue. That however applies to boxed software where as you're making a purchase without being able to read the terms you're agreeing to as you have to buy the product and open the box before you get to see the terms. Gw2 is sold as a digital product by ncsoft (and you can only get refunds from purchases made through ncsoft anyway) The EULA is linked to from the site so the shrinkwrap issue here is a none issue and in those terms at least EULA will be completely valid.

The only other issue is that of actual Laws. Laws definitely win over EULA. So unless you banning people for exploiting is against the law which I doubt. the EULA is probably 100% valid even in Europe. Though I am no lawyer and I might be wrong.

Dont think the reason they're giving refunds is because EULA has no standing. I think they're just not as evil as people think they are.

[raspberry jam]

I, on 11 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

I don't want to jump through it all again. I had 4 level 80's fully geared in exotics, all crafting mastered, and just needed the precursor to complete my legendary.

Yet another piece of evidence that GW2 is about preparing to have fun.

[Rezo]

XPhiler, on 21 January 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

I think people are a bit too confident that EULA have no value in the EU. The reason why there is that believe stems from the shrinkwrap issue. That however applies to boxed software where as you're making a purchase without being able to read the terms you're agreeing to as you have to buy the product and open the box before you get to see the terms. Gw2 is sold as a digital product by ncsoft (and you can only get refunds from purchases made through ncsoft anyway) The EULA is linked to from the site so the shrinkwrap issue here is a none issue and in those terms at least EULA will be completely valid.

The only other issue is that of actual Laws. Laws definitely win over EULA. So unless you banning people for exploiting is against the law which I doubt. the EULA is probably 100% valid even in Europe. Though I am no lawyer and I might be wrong.

Dont think the reason they're giving refunds is because EULA has no standing. I think they're just not as evil as people think they are.

If you think about this in categories of good and evil, sorry but you are naive. It is large company, and what it is driven by is generating profit.That is all.If one action is more profitable than other they will choose it.

[raspberry jam]

XPhiler, on 21 January 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

I think people are a bit too confident that EULA have no value in the EU. The reason why there is that believe stems from the shrinkwrap issue. That however applies to boxed software where as you're making a purchase without being able to read the terms you're agreeing to as you have to buy the product and open the box before you get to see the terms. Gw2 is sold as a digital product by ncsoft (and you can only get refunds from purchases made through ncsoft anyway) The EULA is linked to from the site so the shrinkwrap issue here is a none issue and in those terms at least EULA will be completely valid.

The only other issue is that of actual Laws. Laws definitely win over EULA. So unless you banning people for exploiting is against the law which I doubt. the EULA is probably 100% valid even in Europe. Though I am no lawyer and I might be wrong.

Dont think the reason they're giving refunds is because EULA has no standing. I think they're just not as evil as people think they are.

It's not due to the "shrinkwrap issue", since it is not valid in most EU countries. It's because most EU members, as well as the EU itself, have consumer rights laws that always trump any contract whatsoever.

EU law says that they have to offer a refund, but like you, I think they do it of their own free will.

[Lordkrall]

Rezo, on 21 January 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

If you think about this in categories of good and evil, sorry but you are naive. It is large company, and what it is driven by is generating profit.That is all.If one action is more profitable than other they will choose it.

Of course. But that does not mean they are evil.
And in what way could it be seen as evil when they are quite clearly giving back money to people without having to do so?

[XPhiler]

Soulless, on 21 January 2013 - 02:21 AM, said:

And who's fault was it that the exploits were available in the first place? Programmers should really check their codes. If a coin changing machine thinks my dollar is a 10 dollar bill, I'd gladly take advantage of it.

Actually if you did take advantage in your dollar to 10 dollar banking error scenario you'd be guilty of fraud. It has happened many times.

http://www.lovemoney...the-wrong-money
As Detective Superintendent Col Dyson of the New South Wales fraud squad warned,
“People should realise that, even though an ATM has dispensed cash, they are not entitled to that money and are committing a criminal offence if they keep it.”

http://cyber-securit...g-error-in.html
(not ATM but relevant)

http://consumerist.c...anks-atm-error/
It’s now up to a federal judge to decide what to do with the man. Prosecutors are suggesting 15 months in jail because although the man had a “lapse of judgment,” the bank was at fault for letting the whole thing happen in the first place.

http://uk.finance.ya...-165239004.html

Just cause you dont have to do anything malicious (such as using a sledge hammer to steal the money off an ATM) it doesnt mean it isnt illegal. Programmers should check their code no doubt but their mistake doesnt excuse the mistake people do when they exploit the original mistake.

[Illein]

raspberry jam, on 21 January 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

Yet another piece of evidence that GW2 is about preparing to have fun.

Having a legendary doesn't necessarily make the game more fun, so if that's what you're holding your breath for - don't.

If you don't enjoy the game prior to receiving one, you won't have any more fun afterwards, just a fair warning.

[XPhiler]

Rezo, on 21 January 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

If you think about this in categories of good and evil, sorry but you are naive. It is large company, and what it is driven by is generating profit.That is all.If one action is more profitable than other they will choose it.

Yes and No. It is not always as clear cut.

For example banning these 200 people and giving them refunds generated them money or lost them money?

In the short run I believe they lost money over it. Why? Well the refunds of course as well as time wasted by support handling tickets asking Anet to reconsider ban. Future custom of those 200 people. X amount of people cautious of putting in any more money in the game for fearing they might be banned for something they do inadvertantly. Etc... On the other hand they might believe that keeping the game integrity might result in more profit in the future.

What ever the case, if like you say they were purely concerned about generating profits why didnt they refuse to give out refunds? they had a pretty strong case in my opinion. How many companies do you know that give out refunds after they ban you?

[XPhiler]

raspberry jam, on 21 January 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

It's not due to the "shrinkwrap issue", since it is not valid in most EU countries. It's because most EU members, as well as the EU itself, have consumer rights laws that always trump any contract whatsoever.

EU law says that they have to offer a refund, but like you, I think they do it of their own free will.

I agree that customer right laws thrump EULAs, I said it myself as well but which customer law says you have to issue a refund in the event of a ban for breaking contructual agreements?

[raspberry jam]

Illein, on 21 January 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Having a legendary doesn't necessarily make the game more fun, so if that's what you're holding your breath for - don't.

If you don't enjoy the game prior to receiving one, you won't have any more fun afterwards, just a fair warning.

That is unfortunately the nature of all games that are about preparing to have fun. Either you never stop preparing (and thus never get to the fun), or you max out and realize that the fun you prepared for, doesn't exist.

That is why such games have treadmills. They stop that realization from hitting most people.

[raspberry jam]

XPhiler, on 21 January 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

I agree that customer right laws thrump EULAs, I said it myself as well but which customer law says you have to issue a refund in the event of a ban for breaking contructual agreements?

Oh, that... none. The service provider can issue a ban at any time in such a situation without paying back anything at all. When you are paying for an online service you actually have very few consumer rights.