Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion Online at Shuffle iT => Dominion General Discussion => Goko Dominion Online => Topic started by: cactus on November 10, 2015, 05:42:23 am
-
... well It will be on Thursday by my count.
This posted on the MF forums yesterday by Jeff:
"Submitting it for the third time this coming Monday. In a nutshell, an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way."
*sigh*
I wonder what that realistically means in terms of time until we might actually see it in the App Store?
-
an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.
Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."
-
an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.
Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."
I'm not really familiar with Hearthstone, what do you mean by system-seller? Are you referring to the payment model, or to the fact that people will buy iThings to play HS, or to something else?
-
an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.
Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."
Yep. Imagine the fallout if Apple had told Blizzard that; as soon as they'd gothen the Android app out, the switches to Android would have started. For that matter, I assume Blizzard didn't have to "submit" to the App Store the same way that small companies do. The drive from Irvine to Cupertino isn't that bad, and I'd bet their respective business directors are golf buddies. Hearthstone's appearance on the App Store was likely approved before Blizzard even began the porting process.
In other words, Making Fun is screwed unless they cough up some cash to Apple.
-
an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.
Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."
I'm not really familiar with Hearthstone, what do you mean by system-seller? Are you referring to the payment model, or to the fact that people will buy iThings to play HS, or to something else?
Basically what Kirian said. If iOS didn't have Hearthstone, some folks would convert to Android. Enough that Apple cares.
-
Yep, definitely a dictatorship on the Apple side of the wall. My company had to redesign a feature in a significantly worse way because Apple decided the right way of doing it was against their app store policies.
It might not have anything to do with the fact that our products might compete with theirs, but it is hard to look past the conflict.
-
I have a hard time believing this is anything other than naivety and/or a failure to plan appropriately on the part of Making Fun.
In any case, this issue should have been addressed long before now. There should have been a legitimate iOS edition of this game ages ago.
-
I have a hard time believing this is anything other than naivety and/or a failure to plan appropriately on the part of Making Fun.
In any case, this issue should have been addressed long before now. There should have been a legitimate iOS edition of this game ages ago.
Well certainly there should have been an iOS version of Dominion a long time ago. But this sort of bullshit is 100% Apple's doing. What Apple objects to is customers being able to buy expansions on non-Apple platforms and then play with them using iOS. They insist on all transactions going through them so that they can get a slice. Making Fun could create a separate iOS version that doesn't interact with the other versions (purchases don't carry over; you can't play with non iOS users), but obviously that's not their first choice.
-
I have a hard time believing this is anything other than naivety and/or a failure to plan appropriately on the part of Making Fun.
In any case, this issue should have been addressed long before now. There should have been a legitimate iOS edition of this game ages ago.
Well certainly there should have been an iOS version of Dominion a long time ago. But this sort of bullshit is 100% Apple's doing. What Apple objects to is customers being able to buy expansions on non-Apple platforms and then play with them using iOS.
And why should Apple do that? You're suggesting they should let people leverage their store and access to millions of devices without securing themselves any bit of revenue in exchange?
Seems like a poor business decision to me.
-
I have a hard time believing this is anything other than naivety and/or a failure to plan appropriately on the part of Making Fun.
In any case, this issue should have been addressed long before now. There should have been a legitimate iOS edition of this game ages ago.
Well certainly there should have been an iOS version of Dominion a long time ago. But this sort of bullshit is 100% Apple's doing. What Apple objects to is customers being able to buy expansions on non-Apple platforms and then play with them using iOS.
And why should Apple do that? You're suggesting they should let people leverage their store and access to millions of devices without securing themselves any bit of revenue in exchange?
Seems like a poor business decision to me.
Well they can insist that Making Fun charge for the app itself. Doesn't sound like they're doing that.
-
Well they can insist that Making Fun charge for the app itself. Doesn't sound like they're doing that.
That seems like a reasonable approach. I wonder if they could offer a "credit" via a code in the iOS app that would be redeemable some amount of coins in the Making Fun store.
This way Dominion users wouldn't be out any money.
I don't know if this would solve Apple's other complaints about the purchasing model.
-
an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.
Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."
...except that isn't how it works. It's not just Hearthstone. For example, I have the Audible app (for audiobooks), and I can log in with my account in the app and listen to books that I purchased on the Audible website, and as far as I know, Apple gets 0% of that.
What _does_ exist is that if you sell something _in the app itself_, Apple requires a cut of that, so maybe MF ran afoul of that rule. Audible stopped selling audiobooks from within the app itself for this reason.
Alternatively, the app store reviewing process is notoriously inconsistent, so it could just be the particular app reviewer they drew got confused.
-
Compare this to Android, where it's just "yeah, sure, whatever, do whatever the fuck you want"
Hot damn Apple is shitty
-
an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.
Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."
...except that isn't how it works. It's not just Hearthstone. For example, I have the Audible app (for audiobooks), and I can log in with my account in the app and listen to books that I purchased on the Audible website, and as far as I know, Apple gets 0% of that.
What _does_ exist is that if you sell something _in the app itself_, Apple requires a cut of that, so maybe MF ran afoul of that rule. Audible stopped selling audiobooks from within the app itself for this reason.
Alternatively, the app store reviewing process is notoriously inconsistent, so it could just be the particular app reviewer they drew got confused.
Audible is a system seller though. That app probably nudges a lot of middle aged Kindle + flip phone users over to iPhone. I don't see how Audible debunks this particular "conspiracy theory". On the other hand it's plausible the online Dominion app genuinely fails to sell a single iPhone.
-
an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.
Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."
...except that isn't how it works. It's not just Hearthstone. For example, I have the Audible app (for audiobooks), and I can log in with my account in the app and listen to books that I purchased on the Audible website, and as far as I know, Apple gets 0% of that.
What _does_ exist is that if you sell something _in the app itself_, Apple requires a cut of that, so maybe MF ran afoul of that rule. Audible stopped selling audiobooks from within the app itself for this reason.
Alternatively, the app store reviewing process is notoriously inconsistent, so it could just be the particular app reviewer they drew got confused.
Audible is a system seller though. That app probably nudges a lot of middle aged Kindle + flip phone users over to iPhone. I don't see how Audible debunks this particular "conspiracy theory". On the other hand it's plausible the online Dominion app genuinely fails to sell a single iPhone.
This sent me down a hole trying to figure out what is/isn't allowed and I only came away more confused. :(
One bit of info is that there are definitely some situations where expansions _can't_ be transferred:
http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/contact/walled-gardens/?tab=digital (http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/contact/walled-gardens/?tab=digital)
The Google Play Store, as well as the Apple App Store and the Amazon Store are "walled gardens". This means that their business terms specifically forbid us from granting an app or an expansion ("DLC", "IAP" items...) based on a purchase made on another store.
Interesting that this also applies to the Google Play Store and Amazon Store, so werothegreat's troll post above is incorrect when he claims there's no restriction on Android.
Looking at the app store guidelines themselves, audiobooks are one type of content which is specifically exempted from some rules, so my example of Audible was irrelevant:
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#purchasing-currencies (https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#purchasing-currencies)
Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video and cloud storage) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the App, as long as there is no button or external link in the App to purchase the approved content.
But then on the other hand, Hearthstone is not the only CCG which shares purchased cards across platforms. Solforge also works this way, although I could only find a statement implying it:
https://solforgegame.com/forum/general-discussion/solforge-early-access-with-existing-account-question/ (https://solforgegame.com/forum/general-discussion/solforge-early-access-with-existing-account-question/)
Once Booster Packs go live, you should get a code for 20 Booster Packs (Early Access deal on Steam). You link that code to your SolForge account and you will be able to play with the cards in those Booster Packs on both iPad and PC.
Problem is, I can't figure out _why_ CCGs like Hearthstone and Solforge can allow card purchases to be used on every platform, while Days of Wonder apparently can't do the same with expansion purchases. My only guess is that for the cases that are allowed, you're really just using a client to connect to an online service. It's not like you're transferring purchases, because they were never stored locally anyway. For DoW, which expansions you've bought _is_ local data of the app, so that might be why it falls into a different category.
-
So it feels like there is a severe contradiction between what MF have and what Apple demand from developers.
The adequacy of such demands is the question of it's own, but these requirements are probably public, right?
So why not implement it according to them in the first place, especially if MF rewrote everything from scratch.
I mean, they had plans to support iOS from the very beginning and all.
-
The adequacy of such demands is the question of it's own, but these requirements are probably public, right?
The requirements are public, but notoriously vague and inconsistently applied. I linked them in my previous post if you want a crack at parsing them. (https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#purchasing-currencies)
I think it's very likely that MF doesn't need to change anything major. It might be more a matter of lucking into a reviewer who understands how card game payment models work.
-
Why don't they just charge you to buy the expansions again on the iPhone? That seems to solve the problem. Same account name, but to play with expansions on your phone you have to make the in app purchase to enable them.
-
Why don't they just charge you to buy the expansions again on the iPhone? That seems to solve the problem. Same account name, but to play with expansions on your phone you have to make the in app purchase to enable them.
Well... maybe I'm not understanding, but it sounds like that would suck. Or could they be a penny if you'd already bought them? I mean a centiducat.
-
Interesting that this also applies to the Google Play Store and Amazon Store, so werothegreat's troll post above is incorrect when he claims there's no restriction on Android.
That might apply to the play store, but that doesn't apply it to Android automatically, as you can easily get apps from other stores to your Android device. Afaik, this is not true for ios.
-
Or could they be a penny if you'd already bought them?
...That's an interesting loophole. Are app developers really allowed to charge different amounts depending on the user?
-
I don't think buying the expansions for the iPhone after you've already bought them for the PC sucks anymore than buying the expansions for the PC after you've already bought them once in cardboard form. Assuming at least a couple lines of code were necessary to adapt the application so it would work on iPhones after the pc form was finished, it's pretty much the exact same justifications going from cardboard to pc as it is going from pc to phone.
Perhaps the inconsistency in where the paywalls go is the source of confusion for the reviewers. This is a board game? If you paywalled them when they wanted to play their board game on their PC, why don't we paywall them together when they want to play their board game on their phone?
My "left field" feelings on IP aside, charging a dollar or two per expansion isn't a bad way to give Making Fun some income and a dangling carrot to keep things going, and also a metric about how many people are using the iPhone version and whether they are having so much trouble using it they've bought fewer expansions than they have on the PC. If setting the prices differently for individual users doesn't work, maybe you can sell the expansions for cheap no matter what, but only free the account to play with non-bot opponents with sets that they also have purchased on PC.
-
Well, both Goko and MF promised purchases would carry over to the iOs/Android versions, they can't simply charge us again.
-
Well, both Goko and MF promised purchases would carry over to the iOs/Android versions, they can't simply charge us again.
They may have to.
I think their most realistic option is to have their mobile versions and computer versions be completely separate, ill-thought-out promises be damned. They'd charge very little for each expansion ($1 for Guilds, $2 for Intrigue, $3 for Dark Ages) and make it up in sales volume because that's how board game apps on mobile devices work. At those prices I'd even buy all the expansions again.
-
They could make the Dominion app somewhat of a system seller by making Adventures iOS exclusive.
-
"In other words, Making Fun is screwed unless they cough up some cash to Apple."
I suspect it might be me who is screwed rather than Making Fun.
-
Well, both Goko and MF promised purchases would carry over to the iOs/Android versions, they can't simply charge us again.
They may have to.
I think their most realistic option is to have their mobile versions and computer versions be completely separate, ill-thought-out promises be damned. They'd charge very little for each expansion ($1 for Guilds, $2 for Intrigue, $3 for Dark Ages) and make it up in sales volume because that's how board game apps on mobile devices work. At those prices I'd even buy all the expansions again.
I'm not really ok with being lied to.
I already payed quite a high amount of money for Online Dominion, and will have to pay a ridculous amount of money for Adventures (if they actually manage to get that out)
-
Thank you cactus, for expressing all my feelings these past few days without me having to!
I am also several weeks into the "Don't worry, the app will be out soon" chasm left for iPad users. Wait, no, make that several years, if truth be told...
I agree, having to pay again for iOS use would 'suck' especially since we could play fine(ish) via the website until a few weeks ago, but right now it would be preferable to the situation we're currently in; that of being unable to play at all.
I mean, my wife is going away this weekend. What am I supposed to do? Meth?
-
"In other words, Making Fun is screwed unless they cough up some cash to Apple."
I suspect it might be me who is screwed rather than Making Fun.
Well, yes. :(
-
i've thought for a while that goko/MF have zero clue with regard to their business plan. i could easily believe they would promise something like that and just not know that apple wouldn't allow it
ever since i saw them talking so much about steam, i've been suspicious; as i've posted elsewhere, steam is a trap for smaller developers. things like this aren't making me feel any better.
at this point i honestly wonder if they wouldn't have been better off going with crowdfunding & itch.io...
-
Well, both Goko and MF promised purchases would carry over to the iOs/Android versions, they can't simply charge us again.
They may have to.
I think their most realistic option is to have their mobile versions and computer versions be completely separate, ill-thought-out promises be damned. They'd charge very little for each expansion ($1 for Guilds, $2 for Intrigue, $3 for Dark Ages) and make it up in sales volume because that's how board game apps on mobile devices work. At those prices I'd even buy all the expansions again.
I'm not really ok with being lied to.
Pffft, really? Being "lied" to? There's no evidence that Making Fun intentionally deceived you. They made a promise that they thought they could deliver on, but it may turn out that they can't. If I promise my child that I'll take them to a specific amusement park next week, but the park unexpectedly closes down tomorrow, did I lie to that child?
-
Well, both Goko and MF promised purchases would carry over to the iOs/Android versions, they can't simply charge us again.
They may have to.
I think their most realistic option is to have their mobile versions and computer versions be completely separate, ill-thought-out promises be damned. They'd charge very little for each expansion ($1 for Guilds, $2 for Intrigue, $3 for Dark Ages) and make it up in sales volume because that's how board game apps on mobile devices work. At those prices I'd even buy all the expansions again.
I'm not really ok with being lied to.
Pffft, really? Being "lied" to? There's no evidence that Making Fun intentionally deceived you. They made a promise that they thought they could deliver on, but it may turn out that they can't. If I promise a child that I'll take them to a specific amusement park next week, but the park closes down tomorrow, did I lie to that child?
You didn't lie, but you broke a promise. The child will be loath to believe any future promises you make. (This is a very good reason not to make promises to children.)
Now, politicians and corporations break their promises all the time. It results in a loss of support and/or good will, and it's usually a bad decision for a small corporation, as their profit may depend on the good will of its customers. It's a forced error.
-
You didn't lie, but you broke a promise. The child will be loath to believe any future promises you make. (This is a very good reason not to make promises to children.)
I'm curious: are you just advocating never using the word "promise", or are you actually advocating never telling a child in advance what you plan to do? Because even without the word "promise", sometimes you make commitments that, through no fault of your own, you can't follow through on. And always keeping your children guessing just to cover your own ass seems like a bad idea for all sorts of reasons.
-
except in this case it's totally MF's fault.
-
You didn't lie, but you broke a promise. The child will be loath to believe any future promises you make. (This is a very good reason not to make promises to children.)
I'm curious: are you just advocating never using the word "promise", or are you actually advocating never telling a child in advance what you plan to do? Because even without the word "promise", sometimes you make commitments that, through no fault of your own, you can't follow through on. And always keeping your children guessing just to cover your own ass seems like a bad idea for all sorts of reasons.
Never using the word "promise." "We will do our best to X," "We will try to X," both are acceptable for plans. Obviously you tell them what plans are, but you have to teach them early that plans can change and will change.
-
You didn't lie, but you broke a promise. The child will be loath to believe any future promises you make. (This is a very good reason not to make promises to children.)
I'm curious: are you just advocating never using the word "promise", or are you actually advocating never telling a child in advance what you plan to do? Because even without the word "promise", sometimes you make commitments that, through no fault of your own, you can't follow through on. And always keeping your children guessing just to cover your own ass seems like a bad idea for all sorts of reasons.
Never using the word "promise." "We will do our best to X," "We will try to X," both are acceptable for plans. Obviously you tell them what plans are, but you have to teach them early that plans can change and will change.
Sure, that seems reasonable. But then the real problem is that either the parents or society has taught these children that the word "promise" means this unbreakable bond. Just as you can teach them that plans can and will change, you can also teach them that "promises" are commitments that you'll try your best to honor, not magical guarantees.
-
I think this is a better analogy:
I promise my child I'll take it to the amusement park if it mows the lawn for me 20 times. Then I find out the amusement park costs more than I thought (because I'm too stupid to read), and I make my kid mow the lawn 10 more times before I take it to the amusement park.
-
Wasn't Goko's iPad app accepted into the app store? I can't remember. If it was, I don't see why MF's app couldn't be accepted too, since it's basically the same thing.
-
Wasn't Goko's iPad app accepted into the app store? I can't remember. If it was, I don't see why MF's app couldn't be accepted too, since it's basically the same thing.
No such app was ever released to my knowledge.
-
"Campaign promises" from a business can't be treated the same as personal promises between individuals. I can honor a promise even if it turns out to be a loss for me, because it's based on a friendship or family relationship, and because I supposedly have certain altruistic components somewhere in this body the less robotic people around me insist is human.
A business can only be expected to do actions that make them a profit. Expecting anything else from businesses is a flawed philosophy: the businesses you expect anything more than that from will cease to exist over time, that's how competition works.
"Making a profit" in some cases can, in fact, refer to a short term loss incurred in the process of making good on one of their "promises", because over the long term the additional faith in the company results in profit on the action. This is most frequently the case with super healthy companies that are doing super well. Makingfun, and specifically their Dominion department, doesn't fall under that category quite so much. If they charge for iPhone expansions, you shouldn't feel personally slighted. With the overall reputation they have in general right now is so much lost? I don't think anyone will stop buying the expansions for PC because their illusion of Making Fun as an extremely competent company that delivers on every promise in a timely manner was shattered. So you can't be surprised if they make a business decision with that in mind.
If they stop constantly looking for ways to make a buck, they risk sinking the ship altogether, and keeping the expansions you've already bought is an even more important "promise" they have a greater duty to. As it so happens, just this morning I noticed the desktop icon to my favorite digital CCG, and clicked it soothingly like a man who has loved and lost. Clicking it doesn't do anything because the game went bankrupt years ago, and I can't play a game with the collection I built, because no one can play games of it at all, period. Moaning and whining about what a "broken promise" it is that they didn't keep running the servers at a loss doesn't seem much less reasonable than whining if MF decides to charge for the IPad app, businesses have to make pragmatic decisions.
(dougz I will wash your car and shine your shoes if you implement that dead game plox)
-
"Campaign promises" from a business can't be treated the same as personal promises between individuals. I can honor a promise even if it turns out to be a loss for me, because it's based on a friendship or family relationship, and because I supposedly have certain altruistic components somewhere in the body the less robotic people around me insist is human.
A business can only be expected to do actions that make them a profit. Expecting anything from businesses is a flawed philosophy, the businesses you expect more than that from will cease to exist over time, that's how competition works.
"Making a profit" in some cases can, in fact, refer to a short term loss incurred in the process of making good on one of their "promises", because over the long term the additional faith in the company results in profit on the action. This is most frequently the case with super healthy companies that are doing super well. Makingfun, and specifically their Dominion department, doesn't fall under that category quite so much. If they charge for iPhone expansions, you shouldn't feel personally slighted. With the overall reputation they have in general right now is so much lost? I don't think anyone will stop buying the expansions for PC because their illusion of Making Fun as an extremely competent company that delivers on every promise in a timely manner was shattered. So you can't be surprised if they make a business decision with that in mind.
If they stop constantly looking for ways to make a buck, they risk sinking the ship altogether, and keeping the expansions you've already bought is an even more important "promise" they have a greater duty to. As it so happens, I noticed the desktop icon to my favorite digital CCG, and clicked it soothingly like a man who has loved and lost. Clicking it doesn't do anything because the game went bankrupt years ago, and I can't play a game with the collection I built, because no one can play games of it at all, period. Moaning and whining about what a "broken promise" it is that they didn't keep running the servers at a loss doesn't seem much less reasonable than whining if MF decides to charge for the IPad app, businesses have to make pragmatic decisions.
(dougz I will wash your car and shine your shoes if you implement that dead game plox)
Now I want to know what this long-dead digital CCG was.
-
Carte. Best ccg I ever played.
Art was so gorgeous too.
-
For what it's worth, I brought the whole "Apple won't let you do that" argument up to Goko and MF both, several times. I'm sure evidence of it exists on one of the many feedback forums, at least.
-
Make that six weeks
-
Make that six weeks
I know, right? I'm running out of meth...
-
More "news" from David Admin on the making fun forums:
"seeing new internal builds daily. I can't speak to a release date but it looks like these latest modifications should satisfy apple. Their review process, I think, can take over 7 days. Sorry for any vagueness. I'm not expert on that process and am reluctant to say something that may prove misleading or just wrong"
-
Well, at least it seems MF is trying to be as transparent as possible.
-
I suspect that they might be thwarted by Apple's harsh requirement that apps actually work.
-
One day short of 2 months ... and we're back! Hooray!
Right what can I think of to complain about now! :P
-
One day short of 2 months ... and we're back! Hooray!
Right what can I think of to complain about now! :P
Sounds like you haven't used the app yet.
-
Right! Well I hadn't when I posted but I have now.
Look it is far from perfect but I'm just happy to be able to play again to be honest. The game play was a bit smoother and the animations a bit less revolting than I'd been afraid of (having read all the comments over the past few months).
Plus there were some fairly major annoying things about playing the Goko version of Dominion on a iPad which the MF app seems to fix for me - this is the first time in years I've been able to see how many coin tokens I have saved up for instance - it looks like I can use the chat function which I never could before (so now I don't have so snob people who say GG to me after a game) - so I'm happy enough.
If they could get Adventures programmed sometime this decade I'd be even happier! ;)
-
this is the first time in years I've been able to see how many coin tokens I have saved up for instance
Sounds like you would have a lot of them after saving up for years.
-
this is the first time in years I've been able to see how many coin tokens I have saved up for instance
Sounds like you would have a lot of them after saving up for years.
Cactus, you are a Miser :D