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.
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.
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.
According to the article, that’s not what they find objectionable.
Which is why their lawyer should be disbarred for wasting the court’s time.
There is no possible argument that’s either legally or morally justified in any context that the purchase should transfer.
Okay, cool.