Port... I was thinking ..........you might

This would also open up options for roleplaying a Repo man if the buyers default on payment. Sandbox!

 

I voted 'No" because I feel it might cause some people to put themselves in financially dangerous/unhealthy situations if they end up purchasing something beyond their means.

 

yep some people may. For me it was like a savings account i had some deeds that i bought when i could afford it, when i needed money later on i sold them to other players for their worth or more by adding extra stuff to it! So that kind of worked out. I mean a full price on an item could potentially put someone negative in their account, which they probably get a fee for, if the account even accepts the purchase!

unfortunately for me the bundles are too high priced, but if i could pay half now and half next month or next month or the next then i would have the bundle i want, and it would be fine and within my financial capabilities. Since i wouldn't be dropping one lump sum. I mean if you pay half of a bundle and you cant afford the rest then Port has half the money and you have nothing. Its all about responsibility. I know that i can afford half now and half later financially.

I also go back to when pledges were done, and think of how many people may have put themselves in financial problems with that. I just dont see the difference between now and then?

Plus you can also sell the bundles (and then some) later and make more money from what you paid for the initial bundle. There are people that love this game so much and have money to spend, that will buy it from you, and you can even make overhead on a single bundle sale with adding (telethon givaways or houses/items you have made yourself in the game) in a way it is like a savings account in the end. Anything you buy in this game is worth something to someone.

 

but there would be nothing to repo. You dont get the item until you make the full payment! If it was like a credit card where you could get it before its actually paid off i would be against it all the way!

 

I appreciate your concern, but im also kind of offended by your comment! I feel like you are placing judgement on people you don't even know. Most of us are adults, and can make financial decisions on our own whether bad or good, and we understand the consequences of such! This is the nicest way i could put this, so please don't take offense to it!

But seeing that most of us are adults, we know whether we can afford something or not, the basis for this thread, is not all of us can afford a huge lump some but most of us can afford a payment on such over time. Keep in mind if you dont pay in full whatever bundle you chose Portalarium keeps. ( so if you paid half and cant afford the other half) then port keeps the half paid and you dont get it back! (the item on you are making payments on you do not get unless its paid in full)

So i have to say in the end, after thinking about your post ( trust me i discussed it with others to see how they felt about that post, the people i talked to felt the same) , that reason for "no" is not a valid reason, if i was your kid then yes thats a good reason, but i am an adult and can make these decisions on my own, as can most adults.

 

I would love to hear a viable reason that i could agree with hands down.

I do commend you Autumn Willow, for coming forth with your reason! If anything it gives something to think about for others, that may be in a financial situation.

 

I'm not offended. Saying that is not a valid reason is ... umm extreme. The risk is there. There will be people who might not be able to regulate themselves.

There will be people who might over extend their finances not knowing that things could happen. There was even a big, umm, medical issue on the forums recently that required the community chipping in to help out the player out.

Yes, you could buy the bundles and hope to sell them later, but there are risks involved. The company could fold, the price of items could drop etc, the market could shrink.

I'd recommend reading this interesting article on the ethics of free-to-play games.

If a player cannot purchase the bundle now, and have to wait till payment is over... why not just save the money themselves and purchase it in 2 months?

It makes little sense to put your money in a company to "save it for you". What if an accident happens and you need the months of payment put in? What advantage does a customer have in doing this?

 

We are all old enough.
We aren't here to solve the problems and evils of the world.
A layaway payment plan would be a comfortable payment method for quite a few people.
No deep moral or philosophy involved here.

 

Financial responsibility! We all took a risk just to get this game in the first place, even you. this game could have folded months ago. I knew from the start this game could fold at any minute but i still invested in it (bought into it), I still have my personal thoughts this game may not make it! If i was in an accident, i have money and medical to cover it. But in my situation i can afford say 100.00 now and another next month without effecting myself financially (its what i call play money - money left over after all my bills are paid!) that way this month i spent 100.00, and next month i spent 100.00, so i didnt spend 200.00 at once instead i spent the 100.00 dollars i could actually afford. My bills will definitely come before this game! RL will definitely come before this game. With the payment option they had at the beginning i went from basic account to knight marshall over time, it took about 3 or 4 months but its what i could afford at the moment. I am a responsible adult and i make those decisions on my own.

 

Yes you are and so am I. Are all adults responsible?

 

If i follow your train of thought i would have to point out that there shouldn't be a SotA in the first place.
People might get addicted.

 

The one main issue holding this back is when to release the item. Pre-persistence, you could pledge for a LoTM and commit 10,000. If you made payments for two months then stopped, Port would just remove the items from your inventory prior to the next wipe. Now though, they would really have to hold onto the item until payment was completed, else they (and by extension everyone that plays) would very likely be defrauded along the way.

Cypher Black

 

I see no problem there as long as we are only talking about digital assets.
Everything with a physical reward attatched to it should just not be able to be bought with a payment plan option.

 

That's just slippery slope fallacy. I'm not talking about an extreme here. I'm saying that the danger is there. While @blaquerogue is saying that the concern isn't valid.

 

No it isn't. At least not in my opinion.
Non the less of course your concerns are valid in the borader picture of things.
I just question if they should be 'our' concerns at all.

 

I don't think we need to change each other's minds on this @Earl Atogrim von Draken . We don't have to agree with each other but we should at least acknowledge each other's points .

I continued clarifying not really because of the disagreement, but because the OP said the claim was invalid.

 

definitely not, but they learn from their mistakes and hopefully don't do it again. But i cant go out and blindly say "some people are financially irresponsible" and thats the reason i think its a bad idea to have a payment plan, what about the ones that are financially responsible?
that would be like me saying no one can lease or put a down payment on a car because some people might put themselves in a financial crisis, or no one should get a mortgage since it might put them in a financial crisis etc....

 

When i did a payment plan i didnt get anything until it was fully paid off, at that point i received what i paid for, not sooner.

 

the concern is valid, but people can get addicted to anything! Its my place to say be careful, but not my place to say you have a problem, unless your a friend of mine or a family member. Im saying that the "no" was not valid in a whole, on a personal level yes it may be. (if you had said it would hurt the game economy) i would have to research it, and if it was right then id agree, or if somehow it was bad for the game itself (nothing on a personal level would be valid, because that would be an opinion not a fact) I hope this clarifies what i meant when i said it was not a valid "NO"

 

Scenario 1:
You save for 3 months to buy a bundle. If anything happens to the bundle, or the company, or even if you suddenly realise you're in need of even more money for some emergency. The money is there. If everything goes smoothly you get the bundle at the end of 3 months.

Scenario 2:
You pay a company month by month for a bundle. If anything happens to the bundle, or the company, or even if you suddenly realise you're in need of even more money for some emergency, you won't have access to it. If everything goes smoothly you get the bundle at the end of 3 months.

Which is more financially responsible? Scenario 2 doesn't give you any advantage at all. By choosing scenario 2, it feels like you're kinda saying that the company is helping you save the money that you could have saved on your own. Why would you put yourself in that situation at all?