This will break the game. And no, I'm not trolling.

I think it probably is pretty pointless to debate this topic since the points have been made. The OP put out the concern, others have echoed the concern. The fact a concern has been raised needs to be addressed by the dev team, not those in this thread. Both sides are intractable. And that's fine. I'm just hoping the lurkers are paying attention and will weigh in on the matter should the time come to do so.

I imagine that most people weighing in on the side of no gold sales are ones sitting on the fence about investing anymore than they already have. And I imagine those who are opposing the OPs view are land owners and heavy investors. Of course, there will be those who are ignorant of the importance of this topic and will not care one way or the other.

As for the fact they haven't declared it is not in the game (which would have been a very easy statement on FireLotus' part), only that they will get back to us on it, means one of two things. They either haven't thought 9 months down the road, which would be irresponsible in game development terms. Or they really don't want to tell us, and upset people, which means they're holding out. So we have no choice but to wait for them to disclose their plan.

It's not feeling terribly hopeful based on decisions up to this point. I can only hope I'm wrong.

 

Ex falso sequitur quodlibet
and also
ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet.

Reductio ad absurdum or better "reductio ad impossibilem" which is closer to the original greek term is a very valuable technique widely used in formal mathematics to show that an initial assumption or supposition is wrong.
If you argument does not hold up to this, it is not worth discussing any specifics, as from a contradiction anything can be proven, as stated above.

 

Gold and items will still remain in circulation regardless of who owns it or how they got it.
The worst problem of gold selling is 'Gold Spamming' in global chat. Apparently there will be no global chat so that will deter gold farmers sinse their methods of advertising will be dropped drastically.

If you and a friend are out on a hunt and you pick up a wicked sword which you don't need, you could simply pass it to your friend, or on the other hand you could say I'll give it to you for a fiver (£5), either way the item will change hands but you could be £5 better off.

On the other hand you could have more gold than you need and your friend is skint. He could ask for some gold to buy a sword from a vendor. Would you say no I can't give you gold for that sword because it hurts the game economy?
Ofcourse not, you would give your friend the gold.

So my point is, the argument is completely mute.

 

Perhaps you should start with the actual points in my posts then. Inflation, creation of gold vs movement of gold, long term consequences, sense of fairness, etc etc.

 

My post does actually cover the idea of inflation and how it interacts with a controlled RMT environment. That is, inflation is a requirement of a healthy economy and uncontrolled RMT leads to Stagflation where the value of money falls along with the value of goods. My previous example being gold farming in FFXIV shows that resources become severely devalued with they are excessively farmed meaning that supply and demand no longer exert an economic force.
When gold is 'sold' and created it is not being created through an oversupply of consumer goods so the value of traceable goods inflates with the available money to the economy.

As for gold creation versus gold movement. this game will have gold taps that create gold. If portalarium doesn't create gold to supply RMT transaction, 3rd parties will. But they will exploit gold taps to devalue the resources at the same time as devaluing the currency. most MMO's avoid this by using mechanics like Bind on Pick-up and Bind on Equip which is a mechanic that I feel many would not take kindly to in this game.

I also assert that my view is that there is greater equity when more people can exert similar influence in the game independent of a single constraint, which in this case is 'time' by introducing a second form of investment and that being money.

There seems to be the idea that because some people feel money should have some influence in easing some transactions that it is therefore the intent of those that support it to lay down money toskip it but again I remind any readers here that I believe there should be limits and constraints to ensure equity.

So, in short your post reads as if I have jumped on your post to make assertions and arguments of your points when I am simple replying to people who quoted my original thoughts.

 

This must be the first time i see so strong pro RMT comments (puking a little bit). From KS to addon store to money buying..where does this end? Haters will get so much fuel to the flames with this one and seems like some of the hard core fans are ticked off too (myself included). Weather something is going to happen regardless does not mean you should officially support it! I can understand the reasons behind it (they want/need more money) but this is not the game i backed. If i could take my money back, i'd gladly do so... it exactly this kind of crap that i find myself not caring to log into these forums/sota site anymore. I'm seriously dissapointed.. Portalarium, give us a possibility for refund!

 

Very interesting discussion.......even a fantasy world has an economy. Not sure where I stand on Portalarium actually selling the gold because if they don't sell it I'm sure you'll be able to find someone online who will.......but if Portalarium does sell gold, it cant just create "new" gold out of thin air and put into the economy....that would cause inflation (and prehaps hyper-inflation) in the game. It would have to be controlled and money would have to be taken out of the game as "new" money went in.....one way would be to buy gold as well as sell it (i cant see them doing that). Another way would be to introduce a TAX into the game that would take money out of the economy (didnt they say that homes, land and venders would be taxed for those who didnt buy a home before launch?).

 

OK I think we are heading off in the wrong direction. I do not think selling gold for real money is in any way a good thing for an economy. What I was commenting on was the definition of pay to win. I was not supporting selling in game currency.

Pay to win brings out bad emotions in people real quick, understandably. The definition of words matter so the label we slap onto is important. Selling in game currency, IMO, defeats the purpose of playing the game.

So that brings me to: "RG said it would be rare. His words."
Rare: - (of an event, situation, or condition) not occurring very often.
Limited: - restricted in size, amount, or extent; few, small, or short.

The definition of words matter. Limited fits better. Yes, I understand what RG meant when he said it, still, limited fits better.

This is all really a moo point though.

The important part is that selling in game currency for real money is an instant transaction. From your responce to the time sink word I gather you do not like it. But it's a very simple function, time spent amassing wealth directly impacts the commerce of the game. When some will trade money for that time there is either an over value or an under value of the items in game.

This case, the fear is that it's going to drastically impact the value of housing lots, is well justified. Pretty bad thing to do IMO.

I am sure they are looking at the commerce being conducted outside of their control and are evaluating how they can bring it in house and take control of it, make a little profit while they are at it. It's what they did with housing, why not gold. There may be a why to do it, but it needs to be well thought out.

 

Your post does not explain how controlled RMT makes the situation any better.

It seems to me additional transactions will only accelerate the detrimental process you describe here. Deflation will lead to currency getting displaced by items and resources (people barter and the resources become the new currency, just like people bartered for bread and other necessities during the hyperinflation of early 20th century Germany). Short of a ruined game economy, I also do not see controlled RMTs displacing third party RMTs, and even if they would, the effects would be similarly detrimental. Instead the pace will be accelerated as that behavior gains acceptance. With a similar design to start, the result will be a similarly broken game economy in a shorter timespan.

The obvious countermeasure, creating gold and resource sinks just make the game less enjoyable for those with neither much money nor much time, which I would still argue, no matter what you said, are often the majority of the players.

The simple lesson is that greed ruins both the game design and peoples enjoyment in the game, which is why it is best locked out of both. There is a reason why it is not one of the virtues.

 

It was a mistake with housing as well.
Does FireLotus' post suggest that it will be well thought out?
Shouldn't such a basic decision be made before designing the crafting system, the way loot spawns on monsters, etc.?

By the way:
I would call anything skewing the probability of doing well compared to others by real-life transactions as "pay to win", no matter how minutely this is the case.
Lets just call this "quantum pay to win" as opposed to classical pay to win

 

Ehh... I'll play the game either way.

 

I've gotten in trouble a few times in the past few days and warned that continued bad behavior on my part will have dire consequences, so I don't want to fully express my oppinion at this time.
But I will say, this isn't the game we thought we were getting...atleast that I thought we were getting.

But by the way I've seen things unfold over the last 9 months, I'm not really too surprised...and not really too happy.

 

I walked through Owl's town yesterday and met this beautiful women at the market.

We did exchange some shy looks and after a while i approached here.

I made a promise to suprise her with a special item. The magic rose out of the deep dangerous dungeon of the lich king.

I noticed another person who did flirt with my inspiration.

I battled the hole night, killed the lich lord and returned the flower out of the dungeon.

The next day i and the other man had the same flower for the market lady.


She took mine, because she noticed that i had made a sacrifice for it.

My competitor had only bought his flower in a shop.

So i went on a awsome date.


The message of this little story.

Let others shop. But place a tiny message on those purchased items if someone inspects them :

New Britannia Shop

That way the right person gets the lady.

 

"How can an MMORPG be 'pay to win'?"

You don't win the game itself - nobody wins the MMORPG, that's like declaring Manchester United to have won 'The Football' - but you win individual fights. You win battles, you win tournaments, and you achieve personal goals. If paying real money can get you the best kit in the game, so that you can win every battle and ultimately become king of New Britannia, then it's "pay to win".

One can't win Warhammer 40k, but he can win battles against other players, and wargame tournaments. Buying the best heroes, the biggest tanks and the most powerful veteran units helps players win lots of games, hence the game is "pay to win", even if one can never ultimately 'win Warhammer 40k'.

Or maybe she took the other person's because he can afford to buy expensive things, while you had to trawl through a dirty smelly dungeon, face fire and death, and ruin your best doublet, to get it.

But seriously, marking up things bought from the shop in this way is a good idea, actually. That way, anyone can find out who does this type of trading, and how they react to it is up to them. Maybe RPers are less impressed with the items acquired by having rich, mysterious benefactors.

But tbh, I think it'll be obvious when someone has paid for awesome kit with real money.

 

Guys, you realise that the items ARE already marked up? because the same items will not be able to be purchased ingame ( or will have a different look to it )

The only exception i can see so far is the Lot deeds.

So, if you find items that are from the addon store, don't buy them.
Simple.

And no, it doesnt ruin the economy. Because its not printing money aslong as money itself aint sold.
To make it more clear, even if i buy a house deed on the addon store , even if i intend to sell it for ingame gold ( therefor indirectly buying money ) , it still doesnt effect the OVERALL economy as the money i get has been farmed etc. The only thing it does is make the value of the items bought a little less.

And most if not all major MMO's do this, and it didnt " break the game " , so please...
But i totally understand the people that never intend to pay a dime for ingame items, ofcourse they dont want others to. It makes perfekt sense, and nothing wrong with that. but to state that it will ruin the game.. yeah, No.

 

I saw a hack from the game "Runes of Magic" where the person ran a small program, entered a username/server , then entered 50,000,000 into an input field & hit enter, a few seconds he logged into game with character & wala he had gold in his account, ready to transfer to anyone.
scarry

 

I agree with the thread starter. The joy I derive from an RPG is the joy of having created something myself. That's the essence of RPGs; developing a character and whatever assets s/he has. If I can just go and buy pretty much anything with no effort whatsoever, my motivation for playing dwindles drastically. It means that making an effort makes no difference and it means that people will not appreciate the things they buy because they come about too easily. A brand new set of quality armor should feel rewarding, like an achievement. It clearly isn't if it took three clicks in an RL-cash store to obtain the funds for it.

There is only one reason why the developer would include gold purchase, and that is adding to cash flow. None of this "the players should be able to play the game the way they want"-nonesense. If cash for gold is a part of their business model, I'll feel a bit betrayed. That would have been planned a long time ago and been coverered up.

 

I hope RG and his team make a right decidion. If we can leagally buy gold with cash then I would see no reason to go adventure and search for a treasure.

Yes this is repeating voice but I simply want to vote +1 against the idea.

I want to pledge for episode 2 rather than to buy gold with cash if the money is the reason.

 

I have a reason. I already dropped enough real cash on the game and can't afford any more. Of course, I would be happy to sell you my efforts if you still can't find the motivation.

Thing is in almost every other game I lagged behind other people because they could invest more resource into the game than I could. They always had better weapons and armor, more cash and shot past me in level to where it was painful to adventure with my friends. The resource they had? Time. They could simply play more. I think the sigma of buy gold is really more of the bad feeling of people having something they don't. I am not saying their aren't risks, but if the economy is well designed with RTM in mind I am not sure it will be any different than someone who can invest more time. There is a balance that needs to be maintained, and that involved more than just how one acquires the capital but what they can do with it.

In any case, I am not sure why this is all so surprising since they did mention they were thinking about doing this early on during KS. Pretty sure the Dev chat when they mentioned it spawned a thread as well. Of course that was on the old forums, and not sure how much of that got moved over.

Maybe we will get some information during the chat this evening to kick off RE2.

 

We aren't talking about roses, rainbows and candy here. Those are the kind of things I wouldn't mind were sold for them to make money because they are purely cosmetic, in every conceivable way.

Gold is not cosmetic. So you are comparing amoeba to elephants.