Acheron.1580

If I said I'll give you a dollar a day starting from tomorrow and into infinity but you just have to come to my house, how is that not infinite dollars? Hell what if it was pennies? The value isn't important, it's the quantity. "But when will I have my million dollars? That means it's not infinite". You'll have it on the millionth day, just because you don't get the lump sum now means infinity has a different meaning. If the resource you are getting comes from thin air and you had to put it nothing to get it, it would be infinite. Your argument that because I have 1 account that I actively play is the equivalent of 20 accounts that aren't being played but are used solely to generate gold at no effort to the player is a massive false equivalency. If gold sellers can use the system to make gold to sell for real money at no effort whatsoever to themselves, is that not an exploit? How does it change the definition just because you are using it for personal gain, because it suddenly isn't a violation of ToS? I have yet to see an argument for how this was the intended use Anet had in mind.

How would you monitor it? How could you differentiate the uses of the accounts? Can't rely on credit cards because you can buy the game from amazon, third party retailers (where the real cheap magic happens, at which point Anet doesn't even get your initial money), there was a time when physical copies were a thing. Can't rely on log in time, sometimes people don't have time to play and just log in for their daily stuff, there was a period for a year and a half I finished all of GW1 but still logged in daily for my gw2 home instance, etc. If it's IP, how can you tell it isn't just a family or friends playing together? The point is there is no way to make a ToS agreement that can actually do all of that. There is no possible way to make a system that is automated or human controlled that can tell these things apart.

How? Would they ask why you are buying your account? Would they say please don't log into our game for these reasons alone? How would you differentiate the accounts? If it was based on log in time people would just log in longer. There were probably a lot of questions and discussions that we weren't privy to. There are so many factors to this one decision that none of it can be taken lightly, and if you haven't noticed gaming companies are really tight lipped on anything they say to prevent complications further down the road.

That would depend on when it became a problem, and when they recognized it as a problem. I'm pretty sure when the system was first introduced it wasn't an issue. The combination of the accounts being cheaper to buy and the rewards in the logins going up at some time made a tipping point for when it became profitable would be the start of the problem. People capitalizing on it would be the start of the bigger problem, and then people announcing it publicly and encouraging other's might have been the start of when it was recognized as a problem by the people who could actually do something about it. But there's no bandaid application to say these people are allowed multiple accounts but you aren't. There's no way for Anet to be able to control that in their ToS.

It would always bring short term revenue at the cost of long term potential revenue. I don't think totally fine is the way I would describe it.

I agree that people wouldn't buy accounts NOW, but regardless of when it was announced there would have been people who have been using it for a long time or people who only bought just before the announcement that wouldn't have been happy.

System was changed in 2015, not something that was 11 years ago, and I don't think you know what moving the goal posts is lol. I already explained how the system was probably conceived and how it eventually became an exploit. Them nerfing it is a response to the system that doesn't require them to talk about it or acknowledge it at all.

But they will be as far as we know significantly less valuable to do so. I think the hangup people have is that they aren't getting all corporate PR about it, because it's easier for them to just sweep it quietly under the rug.

What, you mean like they kind of are doing right now?

If they announced it a year ago, and then implemented it a week after announcement, it would be identical to right now. There's no magical timeframe that would make this something people using the system would just accept.

Cool story but does it answer "was the intent behind the system?" If the answer is no, it still fits the definition of an exploit. Suppose I was part of an unscrupulous group that sells legendaries or gold for real money. The $10 per account isn't a cost, it's an investment. And here's the best part, I don't have to do anything to get this stuff. An account gets banned? Whatever I probably made bank on it and I'll just get more. If I have 200 accounts and it takes me 2 hours (unlikely but maybe I like taking my time), it still fuels my ability to make real money by abusing an in game mechanic and all it costs me is $10 per account. "But I'm not doing that, so it isn't an exploit." If you would consider what they are doing an exploit but you what you aren't isn't just because the end result is different that's just moving the goal posts.

So if they had announced a month ago that they were removing the log in bonuses as a feature you'd be ok with it, as opposed to it being announced a couple days ago? I don't get how the announcement is the thing that matters. Again, it's a lot easier for the company to just silently deal with it which is exactly what they opted for. Additionally with the number of people clinging on to "they said it didn't violate terms of service" without talking about it at all they don't even have to be accountable for that.

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can see having the potential to have enough accounts where you do nothing but log in and get a free legendary every month a part of intended behavior and so if that isn't intended then it falls neatly into the definition. In previous posts I have also mentioned how they couldn't possible make it a part of the ToS because the amount of resources and effort/time required to control would be impossible/impractical. I would bet real money that the login bonuses were a discussion behind closed doors for the developers, if only there was a way to be able to verify it.

The alternative is just let them sort themselves out. WAY less work for the devs. If people still want to log in for their smaller rewards they are still welcome to it, if it isn't profitable to do anymore then it'll handle itself. And I'm sorry to say, but every triple A gaming company is the embodiment of corporate greed. Indie devs are the way to go to support developers now because they are divided into 2 categories: Recycled assets to make a quick buck (easy to spot and avoid), and passion projects that have more heart at a cheaper cost than anything big companies have been putting out in a long time. Except you know, huge shout out to Baldur's Gate 3.

.

At the end of monday, the semantics don't matter. The system will be changed against what it currently is, and not insignificantly. Just cause you don't like the "e" word to describe what you were doing doesn't change the fact its going away, nor does it change the definition.

"By proxy" isn't a solid argument, just another excuse because again it lacks intent. If you recall, people were in an uproar when they changed the daily jadestone farming and used the excuse that Anet employees were doing it too, and citing that the Anet employees doing it said it wouldn't get changed. I wouldn't be surprised if Anet employees were partaking in this too. Doesn't make it any less what it is. Multiple account holders who pay $10 and then never give Anet money again because they can convert any gold profit to gems is not a good long term investment since they have basically dried up a source of income for Anet. That's just objectively the truth. Your argument is that it's better than a 1 time gem to gold conversion which is exactly what I've been saying. Better long term for the players without a doubt, worse for Anet. Which would imply....... an exploit of a system that wasn't intended to be used that way.

Oops, 3 months, 4 seasons.

By that logic, just because you like it and multiple people do it doesn't mean it isn't an exploit. I agree they will continue to get their 5AA per day, but they probably will see a much smaller return on it. As I mentioned earlier, it will probably be a significant enough decrease in return to discourage it as practice. If it takes you a year to make back your return instead of 3-5 months then it'll be less enticing, and I assume the return is going to be low low LOW since the only barrier to entry now is a level 80, which will incidentally also cost more if you are using the instant tickets, the same if you buy an expansion with a ticket included or nothing at all as long as you are willing to grind out the levels (which isn't that hard now). On top of that, if the new system rewards players well for playing that they don't have to rely on the TP for their materials as much, the return on those individual accounts will also be lower. Even if it isn't against the terms of service, it really looks like Anet doesn't approve.

Everything else you mentioned beyond the login require you to actually do something in the game more than just pop in. JP chests aren't an issue because they nerfed the jade runestone one to once per account because... wait for it... they considered it an exploit to be able to get it several times over per character. Honestly the rewards from the jumping puzzles are negligible. Crafting once a day? Still costs you resources and time to level your crafting. Buying kitten every week? Costs you resources per week to do it. I completely agree people who multi-box and afk farm will still do it. Also there is a huge difference between sanctioned and unmentioned when it comes to ToS. Where in the terms of service does it mention login bonuses? Making gold in the game using the resources in the game isn't an exploit, it's a part of the game. Using a system where you pay to generate infinite gold for doing nothing is an exploit.

It's possible that the answer isn't straight forward, since each person can buy whatever they want whenever they can afford it, but also - A season is over the course of 3 months. You might be able to answer if the average per month would be similar - it's possible to have a system in place that has increasing costs every time you buy repeats of the same item (eg lets say MC start at 5, go up 5 every time you purchase up to some hard cap like 100). If there's no hard cap on purchasing things from the store, but instead a soft cap where it becomes inefficient it would be really wordy to answer that question accurately. - There could simply be things in there that are more valuable than MC or clovers that you'd want to buy instead, but would prevent you from also being able to afford what you used to get passively. Because each person will have a personal idea of what is valuable, it's hard for devs to narrow down how they might spend their AA. - There is so much that has been passively removed that it's kind of hard to include everything in the discussion without making it immensely long. Or they can do nothing and people will find out in a few days. Additionally, there were a lot of things that people didn't even care that much about from the current rewards system that others might.

Using a flaw in a system for personal gain is pretty much the definition of an exploit. It is irrelevant how the system design got there, it is irrelevant if the designer is aware of it (they are in this case and now it's getting "fixed"). The excuse people use to justify it has and always will be the same: "Well if the designer put it in the there it must be ok, not my fault I'm just taking advantage". Diablo 1 (classic game) had a really obvious exploit, duping. It involved picking up an item on the floor at the same time you picked up an item in inventory. The devs couldn't get it patched out. It was without a doubt a flaw in the system that was exploitable. And these are exactly the same excuses people who used the system had "It's just built into the game". Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want, it's still a pig. As for why it isn't against Anet's term of service, and why it took so long to address, and why it's being changed now: Let's go way back to when this was introduced. It was start of 2015. They changed over the monthly rewards to a much more friendly daily + login rewards, and you can be pretty sure that the first question was "how do we prevent people from just making multiple free accounts for the free login to prevent market manipulation" and the obvious answer was put it behind a purchase. And it works because upgrading your account was a lot more than $10. And down the line the value of the daily login rewards are going up, and the price to upgrade your account is going down, until suddenly there's a very clear profit to be made, and a scenario they hadn't expected pops up: people are willing to pay them money just for login bonuses because it means they will have free gold going forward forever. And of course it doesn't violate ToS, because ToS never included (and honestly can't include) something about this, how would you even phrase it, and then how would you allocate resources to deal with it? It wouldn't be worth the time or effort. If you bought into this, specifically because it was an easy way to make gold without doing anything then guess what? That's an exploit. Some people probably had multiple accounts before the legendary armory and it made sense for them. Other people who do nothing with these accounts other than logging in for free gold is abusing the system. That's honestly all there is to it. You'll still be getting rewarded for it, but maybe instead of 60 gold a month it's now 10 or 20. You are still making a profit for doing nothing, it's just readjusting to values similar to at release where it doesn't look appealing enough to do. The game evolved 8 years ago to make an easier system, the game is evolving again now, and you agreeing that it's okay for the company to do that IS in the ToS.

I mean, a system designed badly enough to take advantage of sounds like justifying an exploit lol, the usual responses are always "Well, it is in the game and the designers put it there so really it's their fault". If I said pay me a one time fee of $400 and every month until the end of GW2 I'll give you a legendary, you'd think that was pretty shady. Would you think something in the game was broken if other people were taking advantage of that and you weren't either because it sounded questionable, or because you didn't have/want to spend that kind of money? Would you be frustrated if Anet did nothing about it? That's literally what's happening with this system. What makes it not an exploit, that you are only doing it a little compared to people who are doing it a lot? That Anet was the ones who got the money? They didn't warn people about changing up of the portal to friend > getting BL keys every 10-15 mins either, they just quashed it quickly. This one was a lot more delicate to figure out how to fix. If you made anywhere over 300 gold for your "efforts" then you already made more than if you had bought gems and converted to gold, and you gamed the system to its profitable point.

One gets you gold indefinitely into the future at no extra cost to you. The other is a system built into the game to generate revenue for Anet. Unless you are talking third party gold at which point yes, that is strait up an abuse of the ToS. The intent of the system wasn't that because it costs Anet money in the long run, and effectively gives an unfair advantage as long as you are willing to throw money at it. To exploit a system is to use it in an unintended way to give yourself an advantage. If you can honestly find anything that suggests that Anet intended players to buy multiple copies of their game and rack up 2000 gold a month for doing literally nothing, and encouraged a system that allows players to not support further gem store purchases as a result, then I'll take back what I said. I already know you are going to fall back on "But Anet says it doesn't violate the terms of service" or "if it was an exploit then accounts would have been banned" but my argument to you is they cut you off. The system will no longer support it. If they wanted people to continue doing this, they wouldn't have changed the system for it. There's nothing against giving gold to players (as long as it isn't bought with real money by a third party), there's nothing against giving mystic coins or resources to another player. So how could they possible have policed it? Just because they couldn't find a way to deal with it didn't mean they condoned it. And now it's clear that they don't. So, what do you have to suggest that it isn't an exploit? And don't answer it cost me money because the profit made was significant at literally no effort on your part (hence, it being an exploit).

Unfortunately buyer beware, right? They are still getting a log in bonus, whatever that would translate to at the end of 28 days (probably not the 60/account that is estimated now), so aside from you still getting something, and the use of an account is typically to play the game, I think they have a way out of being sued or forced to reimburse anyone.