It's time (Option to Hide other players Glamour)

[Joven]

no, it isn't "moot". the players of this game exist in the real world. in fact, it's our only existence. if your argument is so easily defeated by a single statement, pitching a fit when people use it isn't going to help convince others to side with you.

Except you haven't "defeated" anything. Video games are an entirely curated experience whereas the real world you have to interact with elements you don't wish to on a regular basis. I can't snap my fingers and mute someone in the real world but I can here. I can't cast magic or summon primals in the real world yet I can here. That's the beauty of video games. To experience things you can't in the real world. That includes being able to control what you see and hear around you.

anyway this entire debate is moot because of the simple fact that cashshop glams exist.

there are many players that only purchase cash shop glams because of how others perceive them for being in them. if you add the option to hide the glams you are thus adding the option to discourage others from spending money. square would never allow that.

Except as others have pointed out Guild Wars 2 earns all its money via cash shop glamours and they still have this feature. Just saying "this is moot" because you disagree with it solves nothing.

because i don't need to.
people are weird and square likes money. end of story. end of point. end of post. end of subject and end of discussion.

there is nothing more to say or debate. there is no defense. discouraging glams discourages money and discourages players from being themselves. it won't happen.

You don't get to determine any of that.