Art for Gil: Against TOS?

[Fornix]

Directly from the ToS:

2.2 Real Money Trading, Farming and Power-Leveling. You may not sell, purchase or exchange for real-world money or value any in-game currency, accounts, characters, in-game services, or in-game virtual items. You may not play the Game for the purpose of acquiring virtual items or advancement in game play on behalf of a third-party or for the purpose of selling any virtual assets to a third party for real-world money, specifically including "gold-farming" and power-leveling services.

source: http://support.na.square-enix.com/ru...2&tag=users_en

Of interest is the following snippet:

You may not sell, purchase or exchange for real-world ... value any in-game currency ... .

Value in this context implies monetary worth. Art has value, and as such the trade between art and gil would conflict with the ToS. So in essence by selling your art, you're purchasing gil. And the person purchasing the art, is merely selling gil.

[Nel_Celestine]

snip

Wish people would use this logic with things like 3rd Party tools (parsers etc) instead of saying "grey area don't ask don't tell" when it's in the ToS that they are against it. Two way street. Both are grey area or neither are.

[BreathlessTao]

Directly from the ToS:

2.2 Real Money Trading, Farming and Power-Leveling. You may not sell, purchase or exchange for real-world money or value any in-game currency, accounts, characters, in-game services, or in-game virtual items.

source: http://support.na.square-enix.com/ru...2&tag=users_en

COUGHcashshopCOUGH
I mean so cute that it's their own TOS. But of course it's ok because it's them selling it......~

[vred13v]

COUGHcashshopCOUGH
I mean so cute that it's their own TOS. But of course it's ok because it's them selling it......~

it clearly says "you" may not, not "we" may not
the wording excludes themselves from the rule