1 Instanced House Per Account

Right. In hindsight, I believe housing used in this manner was a bad idea, but that was the model chosen and we have to respect that.

I understand what RG was trying to do. Give value to your land and home and really create a bond between your character and the world. Its a shame we didn't raise 100mil to support a full backend MMO with greater housing options for people.

Perhaps our bickering will lead to an instanced option in the future or maybe my "Inn" proposal.

 

If you want to be a stickler and say that they will hold themselves to things stated during Kickstarter, then perhaps I may remind you of the instance where Dallas said that every founder (now Royal Founder) would place before everyone who came after, because without us none of this could have happened. That was tossed to the side. They also said no wilderness housing, but according to DarkStarr, are potentially going to pursue doing it in Episode 1 because of fan interest. Even DarkStarr's 'lots will not be oversold' comment that would have empty lots in the game at launch seems to go against Richard's comment during KickStarter that all lots will be sold.

The point is that until the game launches, the statements about what the game will be at launch can change. We're part of that process, I hope.

 

Ah ok, Thanks Kal. I knew about taxes, just that LoneStranger didn't clarify if that meant in-game gold or actual cash.

 

Why should one respect that? It was and is bad design and a foolish idea. I have no respect for that.

 

May I ask where this has happened? If is has, I have not seen it.
If you removed it and warned people, then why are you posting this here?

 

This might seem obvious, but I still think it bears saying...

The market for persistent housing, and the market for instanced housing are two totally different markets.

There is absolutely no reason why both can't be serviced, in their own way, and not affect each other. No reason.

As a result, there's no reason for either side to be arguing with each other here, if we all take a step back and consider that.

 

Considering how extremely limited houses are and the fact there is no reason to have multiple lots * just limit it so the most ppl possible can enjoy. Any decisions to limit is a win for the gamers and any moves made to keep it unrestricted would have no other purpose than to artificially raise houses costs ingame and out of game which worries me that one person has the say and that he isnt above reproach and should be weary of one artificially keeping prices high in order to keep revenue from sold items as hgh as possible

Whos to say one day rg or his successor thinks they deserve more money and decide to play real estate tycoon on his own game. Thats what worries me. When it stops being about the game and the only purpose it serves is revenue

edited for content ~ FireLotus

 

They may be two markets (that is debatable), but they undoubtedly influence one another. Adding instanced housing will, for better or worse, lower the 'value' of persistent housing; there is really no way around that. I'm not passing judgement on what I think the best solution is (I personally don't have a dog in the fight), but I don't think it's accurate that they are separate, unrelated, and never shall the two meet.

 

Are you talking about full on instanced housing? Or housing with limitations? If you limit the functionality of instanced housing/rooms then you minimize any negative impact on static housing, but at the same time, you are also giving people a taste of ownership, which may lead to them purchasing a static lot/house. I think the effects are a wash.

 

I would be very surprised if it coincidentally balanced out. You are talking about pretty sophisticated market analysis for very well understood markets, let alone video game real estate which is largely unknown. Again, not saying pro or con, but there is going to be an impact.

 

Darkstarr just mentioned that they are looking into creating a locking mechanism that can be put on to doors that would block / allow access to certain rooms for people who have the key. Access will be granted for a limited time, e.g. 1 day, 1 week.

This is a step in a positive direction. Closer towards the idea of an inn, although not instanced. Will be interesting to see what they can pull off.

 

+1 for keyed doors.

 

After seeing the current state of housing first hand, I've also decided to hold my pledge where it is. I was opposed to this idea even before seeing R4. After seeing R4, I'm appalled it was ever considered. This business model has me very concerned for the success of this game. The current price of a lot + house in the addon store is equivalent to more than a year of $15 monthly subscription payments. It's completely absurd, and it makes me feel like people with more money than me have an advantage in this game. That's one of the realities games are supposed to help us escape.

 

But you can buy it just playing. If to buy a house is an adventage or not will depends of who will answer the question, because is not that clear.

 

Why not give the ability for people to "rent" rooms. Basically it's an instanced version of a piece of their house where they can store their valuables. If you "default", you forfeit what you had stored there and it's lootable by the house owner.

You could have landlords to really promote the "empire building" player-base, while satisfying the diehard do-it-all-myself types that thrive on PvP.

 

You can if you play enough. The limitation on plot quantities as described in the Deep Dive will leave far too few to those wanting to buy with in-game currency. I would bet money on that. I'm an adult now who grew up with UO, and I don't have the time now to play competitively.

Regardless, there is a legitimate conflict of interest in game developers providing items of consequence for real world currency. If the philosophy here is that player housing really is a vanity thing, I don't want this game. Player housing in the games that implemented the idea the most successfully colored it with personality, and I don't mean decoration. I mean utilities and vendors that made well-maintained player houses premier destinations. Naturally, games that offer a player-run economy are best situated to implement this, as well stocked vendors have meaning in those worlds. We have so far been led to believe this game will offer useful player-run vendors, so what's the sense in putting them anywhere but our properties? It only makes sense. Player housing is about having space that you can make your own in a world filled of things that can never really be yours, but successful player housing is letting you set that space up such that it has meaning to other players. That all starts, of course, with giving everyone an equally fair shot at attaining one in the first place. We're screwing the pooch on square one. How am I supposed to hope for successful implementation of anything else when one of the most popular features (and one that earned a very special place in this gamer's heart many years ago in UO) is being played as a cash grab?

I understand we're only at R4 for E1, and I completely understand that the way things are now won't always be the case. Still, this game will live or die by its first (real) year, and it bothers me to no end to see this opportunity threatened by such an offensive strategy.

 

I cannot see the problem. I you dont have time you can pay for the house. If you dont have money (or you dont want to buy the plot) you can pay it with gold playing. If you dont have money and you dont want/can play for that is normal that you will not have a house (same as UO). Of course will be harder to find space at first time, but they will add more lands in every expansion. Anyway we should still wait to see how the game grows to judge any specific housing problems. And the servers for this kind of housing will have a price...

In the other point to rent rooms maybe sound cool, but could be complicated. And finally I personally prefer a game without store, but I will survive with it, specially if you can also find most of the items, or similar ones, by playing.

 

I have never been a fan of the way housing has been handled. A lot of developer time has gone into a feature limited players can access.

Has there been a ration done of purchased vs available in game lots? And what are the price of in game lots if they cost over 500 just to get one in cash?

 

They discussed in a Deep Dive calculating the number of lots available for in-game purchase by basing it on the number of lots that are purchased through the addon store and pledges. They estimated adding an additional 60%. If they stick to that, you can count on those lots becoming unavailable fast.

 

You respect it because it is Richard Garriott's decision, not yours. You respect it because he is making the game, not you. If you like the game he makes, play it. If not, don't.

It is not "bad design and a foolish idea." Those are your OPINIONS. For example, I think it is refreshingly good design and a great idea. I can't wait for real, meaningful housing.

To the OP: I understand why you want the easy, convenient solution, but please think of what it would do to the roleplaying experience.

I don't want to watch 5,000 or 10,000 or possibly 100,000 players going in and out of one door all day long. I've spent enough time in the Orgrimmar Bank with idiots shooting fireworks off the roof and naked chicks dancing on the mailbox, and I can't even see where I'm going because of the absurd press of bodies all around me... and you want to turn my front yard into THAT? No thanks.