I can agree with the legality part at the end of chargebacks, scams, and/or a falling out. But with the rest I just feel like it comes down to “who gets the money” that’s the real reason that RMT is not allowed. Because Torn isn’t getting money for a torn owned thing and someone else is. If Torn is getting the money, I don’t see a problem with RMT. Similar to out of game services. If I make you a discord server for your faction and you pay me 10M for it. That’s not against the rules. Torn isn’t losing real money.
[206R] Sponsoring another player's subscription
Started by 2480971 [2480971] on in Suggestions.
Posts archived: 147 / 147 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Yes it's true that Ched ends up with the money, but there is still the aspect of trading something in game for something that must be obtained with a direct RL cash transaction on behalf of the recipient, which from where I sit makes it RMT.
Whether Ched is willing to push the semi-pay to win aspect of DP's a little further down the more direct RMT path with subs is something for him to ponder, but there are some additional risks as noted above.
Like I said I'm not for or against this, but it does have the potential to get a bit messy down the track, especially if players start viewing this as a means to get ahead in the game on a P2W basis on a wider scale with less risk.
Whether Ched is willing to push the semi-pay to win aspect of DP's a little further down the more direct RMT path with subs is something for him to ponder, but there are some additional risks as noted above.
Like I said I'm not for or against this, but it does have the potential to get a bit messy down the track, especially if players start viewing this as a means to get ahead in the game on a P2W basis on a wider scale with less risk.
This feels oddly personally
But that’s exactly the same as donator packs?
I think you're confused.
Player A doesn't get anything at all. They are gifting the subscription, not selling it.
Player B gets a completely free subscription. They don't give anything to player A or to Ched.
As long as this is upheld, RMT doesn't apply.
Player A doesn't get anything at all. They are gifting the subscription, not selling it.
Player B gets a completely free subscription. They don't give anything to player A or to Ched.
As long as this is upheld, RMT doesn't apply.
I'm all for a gift sub option, Ched less so, plus the system doesn't really allow for it.
However the issue comes if payments fail or chargebacks occur, the gifted individual could be unfairly screwed over as a result. It would also be very messy should someone gift multiple subs and then chargebacks occur for all of them... Maybe if this was a thing there would need to be a limit of say 3 gifts per person.
However the issue comes if payments fail or chargebacks occur, the gifted individual could be unfairly screwed over as a result. It would also be very messy should someone gift multiple subs and then chargebacks occur for all of them... Maybe if this was a thing there would need to be a limit of say 3 gifts per person.
Subscription packs incoming!
I haven’t considered the charge back scenario, to be honest It’s surprising you have to honour those considering it’s service rendered.
A limit I think would certainly be appropriate, perhaps having it work similarly to a property rental / where it has to be reaffirmed every month or quarter would limit the impact of this kind of issue?
A limit I think would certainly be appropriate, perhaps having it work similarly to a property rental / where it has to be reaffirmed every month or quarter would limit the impact of this kind of issue?
Is it worth investigating how a platform like Twitch handles situations like these on sub gifting?
You say that as if we have a choice in every scenario lol
If it has to be reaffirmed then there's no point in this idea though as that's not a subscription.
If it has to be reaffirmed then there's no point in this idea though as that's not a subscription.
Yes! We got Bogie! The battles half over xD.
For chargebacks, limiting it to 3 subs sounds like a good idea.
The recipient should also get a warning so they are aware that they could be screwed by a chargeback.
For chargebacks, limiting it to 3 subs sounds like a good idea.
The recipient should also get a warning so they are aware that they could be screwed by a chargeback.
No, I understand that haha - Just surprising as I always assumed the customer had to provide evidence of fraud or give a justifiable reason to dispute a payment.
What could Torn even do to recuperate a subscription claim back? I know if it was donator packs you could take back the equivalent funds, but books and such?
Ah,
I need someone smarter than me to think of an appropriate way this could be implemented. :(
What could Torn even do to recuperate a subscription claim back? I know if it was donator packs you could take back the equivalent funds, but books and such?
Ah,
I need someone smarter than me to think of an appropriate way this could be implemented. :(
We can also remove books and stuff.
But what if a book was given and was already under usage? I mean you can remove the duration remaining, but how do you remove the period already used?
Doesn’t this kind of go down a rabbit hole of potential RMT stuff though?
Player 1: Hey instead of paying my subscription every month I’ll give you XYZ to gift a sub to me
Player 2: Ok!
I mean sure the money isn’t going directly to Player 1, but money is fungible, ya know? It just seems like it’s best avoided.
Player 1: Hey instead of paying my subscription every month I’ll give you XYZ to gift a sub to me
Player 2: Ok!
I mean sure the money isn’t going directly to Player 1, but money is fungible, ya know? It just seems like it’s best avoided.
I still personally don’t see how this isn’t exactly how donator packs work?
Player 1: Hey instead of paying a subscription every month I’ll give you 24M to buy me a DP (except I won’t get the rewards even though it’s basically the same RL value for you)
Player 2: Ok!
XD
Player 1: Hey instead of paying a subscription every month I’ll give you 24M to buy me a DP (except I won’t get the rewards even though it’s basically the same RL value for you)
Player 2: Ok!
XD
True. Although you can get a DP in the game without using your own money. Buying a thing with money that then you can trade to others is slightly different than directly paying for something for someone, But yes, you have a good point.
That's where it would get a little bit more complicated, but it's also not like we don't already have to face that problem should it occur.
There will, for sure, be subscription trading even if it has to be hidden somehow. However, can we really consider it RMT?
RMT is when Player B paid real $ for Player A in exchange for torn cash or any torn item. It's RMT because Torn did not get money out of this transaction (and may even have lost as opportunity cost on DP)
In the case of subscription trading. Player B pays real $ for torn to offer Player A a subscription in (possible) exchange of torn cash or any other torn item. Thus, torn receives real $. We may imply that Player A received something that has real $ value but we can say the same about DP.
HOWEVER, I do not know how viable such a mechanic can be. Subscriptions may get traded for ~100M per month.
RMT is when Player B paid real $ for Player A in exchange for torn cash or any torn item. It's RMT because Torn did not get money out of this transaction (and may even have lost as opportunity cost on DP)
In the case of subscription trading. Player B pays real $ for torn to offer Player A a subscription in (possible) exchange of torn cash or any other torn item. Thus, torn receives real $. We may imply that Player A received something that has real $ value but we can say the same about DP.
HOWEVER, I do not know how viable such a mechanic can be. Subscriptions may get traded for ~100M per month.
No I'm not confused - you just didn't read what I'd quoted before replying.