• conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    As much as I think this is exploitive and that pay to win horseshit shouldn’t be allowed, I don’t see how there’s any kind of merit to this case.

    Pay to win is allowed and there’s nothing deceptive happening.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s literally the entirety of what their currency is. There isn’t anything else.

        It never in any way implies that it’s transferable or applies to other games. It’s very clearly a purchase of advancement in that specific game.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          It never in any way implies that it’s transferable or applies to other games.

          Right, but the lawsuit is over the fact that it never says otherwise either. Pay to win is neither here nor there. It could be just for cosmetics, and the suit still stands. To be clear, I’m not a lawyer, and I’ve never played any of the games this is in reference to. Pay to win just doesn’t seem to be a part of this at all.

          • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Pay to win is literally the only part any human being with a shred of intelligence could in any way find objectionable.

            You’re literally paying to advance in a specific game. That’s the transaction. It is not possible to believe it could possible apply to anything else.