Cost

Sorry........... What school of economics is this?

 

Just for clarity, if there is demand for an item at the price that is set and the items sells at a rate that is agreeable to the vendor then the price has to be correct.

 

They aren't taking an Economical approach to it, they are just stating what they are worried about, which is a fair worry.

However, as a casual gamer, in most online games, you never were able to get one of the most sought after items on the first go, because there always will be those that play more, are better, or willing to spend the money on it.
That is the way of online games, nothing can be done about it.

 

For the two parties involved not necessarily a representation of Market Value

 

Funny how you ignored everything else to focus on that...seems to me that you didn't want to get into the fact it will possibly screw up in game economics to make everything unrealistically high priced...


And yes there will be those that will play more, and most likely those that pledged more. The thing is, these lots are limited and they will be gone. A big part, as stated by the games website itself, will not be available to the average player.

 

That is for a year if you miss the first release. Each Episode will come out with more housing, so if you miss it in this one, save and be ready for the next.

 

Sounds like any school of economics to me. On a supply and demand curve, there might be a better price point, one that brings in more profit, even if the point you're at makes some amount of profit. A different price point on the curve might be better for both the buyers and the seller. ... And if you want to dissect the semantics further, there's also something in economic theory called overvaluation.

 

Housing is available to everyone in game, once all space has been taken it will still be available from standard buying and selling between players. It's just that not everyone will be able to own a house at a given point in time.

 

Until the next chapter when more will be added. Will every player own a lot? Of course not, this should make finally getting one more rewarding. If you make property the main reason you are playing, then I am sure you'll quit in fusteration. Some of us will continue to play and given the shot will become property owners.

As for the economics unless they limit gold to a set number, tax a good portion out, inflation in sure bet. Don't care for tax free vendors myself, but what can I do its been promised.

 

Your right.....it could mean that the price in $ should be even higher.

I am quite sure given the limited quantity of houses available in game and the even more limited quantity that is available at the addon store......I expect the intended price point is exactly correct which is inline with the expectations of the business.

There's is only a handful of people who know the answer and that will be the developers as they will know how well the price in $ will reflect upon the price ingame.

Personally I believe the price is reasonable for a rare item and on that basis I was more than happy to buy plots.

 

Housing will not be available to everyone who plays the game at any given time. Yes, if someone wants to sell a lot then sure it may become available. But that requires someone to sell.

Contrary to popular belief it isn't the housing levels that provided the most funding for the game, at least by what the kickstarter has shown. The majority of the funding came from levels below the housing level.

Those that did fund below the price of a house will start to see a discrepancy in how the game treats them, you are at a disadvantage in the game. No two ways about it, you are.

I don't expect anyone who bought the lots at the price they are offered to complain, it was a good price to them. To the many who did not though, it is obviously was not. There are a significant more who did not then who did.

 

I bought collector, if I don't get a house, I'll work hard until I do. If I never do, tough cookies. I don't feel entitled to anything other then the best game the devs can deliver. The fluff is nice but I payed for a chance to play in a world not a theme park. *edit* If that means life isnt fair because everyone doesn't get something.... I can live with that.

 

Oh, because that argument makes sense to what I am saying. I am saying that due to the way things are being done it is even less likely those playing in game, I know weird playing in game, will have less of a chance at items that seem paramount to the game.

 

I think you are right on, on what you are perceiving - but I think this may change a little when the development process matures and progresses further down the road ... at the moment housing is the big draw, I imagine that when combat and PvP are reveled housing will not be as prominent (but of course that does not alleviate the problem that you bring up - I've suggested in other threads that they release housing in 3 stages throughout episode one to give folks that could not/or did not want to purchase a house with real cash a fair shot at home ownership.

 

Imo, the fact that people are buying houses with real money makes that aspect of the game feel more like a theme park than a part of gameplay, because it makes it somewhat like Second Life. I'm not complaining about it, because they need a way to raise money. It doesn't mean its ideal; housing in UO, for instance, felt like more than fluff.

 

This is my main concern with housing. I don't mind if housing is limited to only .001% of the population, nor do I mind if housing is a central element of the game, but I am concerned that housing will be both extremely limited (probably not to .001% though) and a central element to the game, which seems unfair.

 

But it is not. Your perception is it is. It is a perk, a jive, a gimmick, but in no way is it paramount to the enjoyment of the game. Sure you get some perks with ownership, but in no way is it game breaking. What you seem to be advocating is everyone should get a lot, ruining the value of home ownership as being something specail.

 

Not at all, I just think everyone should have the same chance to home ownership, not based on real world cash. I know that goes against those that have purchased the property, because of course they would see no problems with it. It is an issue even if many don't think it is.

 

This is ideal imo (what you're saying), but the website seems to imply otherwise.

 

Man i sure wish that they would lower the price of the new 2014 Lamborghini Veneno because I don't think it is fair that those who can afford it may buy them up before i can get a job and get one myself.