To be entirely fair, it should not have from the start of the Bazaar system.
They explicitly have a “Monetization Expert” now. If we look at the grievances against the Bazaar, they match pretty squarely with common rage points across the industry. As much as this one hates it, Funcom’s “Expert” simply brought them to the parity of deplorability. Industry Standard is an amusing concept.
They have acknowledged the issues, especially about transparency, it was a thing they were “working on”. Which is, until proven otherwise, a placeholder for deliberately allowing to slide.
Even that is dicey. While there are certainly many Mammon cultists who will give themselves rosy palms in adoration of any system that leans hard into Caveat Emptor territory, and will vocalize how anything that can be gotten away with is “right”… and to be entirely fair, a fool and their money were lucky to get together in the first place… this one is addressing the other half.
Legal is entirely dependent upon the laws across the hundreds, if not thousands, of jurisdictions that the transactions take place. In a few their EULA, while not criminal on it’s own, would count as an aggravating factor in any legal proceedings for other bits of advertisement of goods other than supplied upon purchase. Then there’s the gray area of having their own sham currency. It’s all a huge mess that demonstrates why becoming even a paralegal, much less a full practitioner of law, is a many year slog.
1 Like