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

This game will be great ... but if they sell gold I will be highly disappointed ... folks if this is your first post and you are promoting a another game I can't take you too seriously

 

People will likely sell resources like iron and diamons as well as gold? Then in addition to that people might sell the best items in the game instead of selling gold. There will be demand for the most difficult to craft items, and rare items.

By your logic then portalarium should be able to sell resources like iron etc, and also sell the most powerful items in the game as well because other people like farmers will likely sell them in bulk for money.

I remember with UO people use to sell houses, resources like iron ingots, and all sorts of stuff on Ebay. So just because it's being sold by others should Portalarium also sell these things? Maybe, but then it would be a game where you can just buy all the resources, gold, houses, rares, and all the key things in the game.


I would be just as upset if they sell Iron in the store! See how selling gold is the same thing as selling the other items? It is pay to win.

 

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to be disagreeable to you. I like your posts. I, too, would like to believe they haven't figured it out yet as the only reason they haven't been forthcoming with the information.

But to be honest, if they haven't figured out game economy by this late in the game (9 months to release date), then Roger, we got a problem. It doesn't forebode well.

 

Well if you have not figured it out yet, how can you in good conscience claim to not want to sell power for money. That statement indicates you have figured it out.
So, honesty to backers would demand that now they should only think about options that fulfill that promise.

By the way:
To me it would be even worse news if they had not decided on one of the central game elements at this stage. That is a mistake which might be regretted for enthusiastic first timer, but not for industry veterans.
If an industry veteran would act like that I would wonder if he is getting old and out of touch.

 

Liked the whole post, but really like that word "Paymer" for a description. It's the gamers vs. the paymers! Let's get ready to rumble!

 

Both statements have been made, which already illustrates the main issue at hand: The longer they leave this unclarified, the more people will feel taken advantage of. Short of refunding those people their money, noting would change that.
Having a clear funding model from the start could have avoided it all.

 

I take those especially seriously as it provides an opinion apart from the regular forum users, which mainly are an assembly of high backers and fans of previous ultima games provide.
For every non-backer that actually takes the time to explain why he won't back, there are probably >100 who just click on to the next game for the same reasons.

 

I don't know. I don't think them waiting will change the result. People will still feel the same why they will just now have the black and white to point too. There are many issues like this that will have windfall once the line is drawn. However, I do think most other issues will loose people on both sides, but I honestly don't see many people getting that upset if they decide not to sell gold so this one is unique.

But the real core of the issue is this is exactly why not everyone should fund a game before launch. Expecting all the details to be decided before there is funding to explore those options is unrealistic. They stated their thoughts on these things, so being upset they are exploring them is kind of childish. Its ok to have opinions and voice them that is what Portalarium wants, but it should have been clear this was going to be a bumpy ride.

 

Yes, it will make it worse by making more people pledge with an unclear situation.

As I have pointed out previously, this is information any traditional investor would have demanded. A Publisher might not have demanded it, but would have wanted to instead control it.
A crowdfunding project does not get you off the hook if you choose to go a route that many would perceive as bad business ethics.

 

Well I disagree that crowdfunding is investing. It is pledging like when you give money to PBS: you get no stake in the company or product. Good luck enforcing any investment rules on crowdfunding.

And if you did "invest" without making the "demand" that's your own fault right? I doubt venture capitalists complain when they failed to get the proper insurances of things. Just watch a few episodes of Shark Tank: They says "I'm out" and give no money. If this issue is that big a deal then no one should have "invested" until they got a solid response in writing. But then again, I do not believe this is investing. This is public funding in exchange for a coffee mug.

 

Which is exactly why rewards should not have investment character. This is where the whole problem starts.
In my personal opinion crowdfunding rewards having investment character should legally be treated as investments and I know that this is an opinion shared by some law professors.
When law is outdated it needs to be changed. This is a discussion for another place, but this is where the whole problem starts.

 

There's a big difference between possibility and reality. Many of us are trying to make sure it does not become a reality.

 

Well, "pledging" has been around as long as investing. It pretty standard and clearly different than investing. We have had public broadcasting on radio/tv/even youtube. It is stated clearly when you do this that you are not investing. Never was any stake in the company, product or profits offered and thus not investing. Pledging is the same as donated and unless we just want there to be no charities I doubt any laws will ever restrict it. And yes some charities are for-profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_charity

 

That is totally fine, and I have no problem with that. But you KNEW it was possible and took the risk. Campaign against it all you want: even Portalarium wants to hear your opinion.

My only concern is threats made to damage Portalarium's reputation as a liar and a scammer when this is not true. If you knew it was a possibility and entered into the agreement anyways then they are not a liar for doing it. You don't have to like it and I even support you giving users caution, but calling liars and scammers is not true and are libelous statements.

 

If someone has the nerve to finally post their only post in this thread, they're a brave soul. I guess it didn't hit me that they were promoting another game. But I still took their statement seriously. I took it seriously because they had the nerve to post their first post on this topic.

But you're right, this game will probably be great. I'm just not sure if we have the right crowd to agree.

 

No actually, I didn't know it would be possible - I thought the ideas had been thrown out there because it was a discussion with no conclusion. You have to consider all methods of economy in the beginning, so of course it's going to be mentioned. But to be honest, my line of thinking was, "Surely they would not be so stupid as to actually carry through with this, not in today's gaming world after seeing the problems it creates."

Call me naive and trusting. But to say I knew it was a risk is assuming you knew what I thought and my logic.

I agree, it's not productive to call them scammers or liars. However, in the context of their actions, if selling gold becomes a reality, people will rightfully feel this way.

 

I highlighted your key words. It was being discussed and you assumed a certain outcome. You admit there to knowing it was possible. Just because you don't think or want them to implement something that was on the table doesn't make the liars. We all trust people we probably shouldn't or believe something will turn out different; however, we have no one to blame that on but ourselves. They did not lie they were open about their plans, their possibilities and the undecided nature of many features.

People will feel how they feel and think how they think, but that doesn't mean it is rightful to blame others for your own assumptions and actively try to destroy their livelihood because you did not get it your way. People are speaking with emotion right now, but I think that any rational person knows this is wrong.

 

Yes, and those who want to buy in-game gold are also assuming an outcome. It's best that both sides of the issue discuss what outcome they are willing to live with or not.

 

Hi folks - It's obvious that we are all just looking for info; please vote by "liking" questions Here .. the questions with the most "likes" will be submitted to the dev's and will be answered.

Here are two/three questions that are relevant to the topic on this thread:

Do you have a timeline or date when you will provide answers to PvP, Combat and RMT? Can you share those dates with us? (Margard)

Is it currently a design goal that players will be able to purchase in-game currency with real-life cash/money, directly from Portalarium? (Vjek)

 

But those that might want to buy gold are not threatening to destroy Portalarium Business by libel if they don't allow it.

Disengaging on this discussion. I believe my point has been made and proven by both sides of the exchanges.