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

I have mixed feelings about this issue.

I see Darkstarr's point about buying gold not being "pay to win" because they are not selling anything unique that is far superior to anything made in game. It's a short cut to buying the best gear in the game, which still needs to be made by a player. There is a definite advantage to those who are buying gold, but on the other hand, there is also a definite advantage to those who don't have to work 40 hours a day and can grind the gold.

My concern is about how this will impact the economy. A game that is based around limited housing resources and robust crafting, as opposed to dungeon grinding for epic gear, needs to spend a lot more time considering economic impact. The amount of gold coming into the economy through PvE and mission needs to be offset by the rate of decay of equipment. Most games fail miserably in this regard. And if SotA is going to add a second major input, player-bought gold, into the economy, than they really need to get the this right. It's not impossible though. Planet Etrophy uses a system where players buy in-game money, but everything in that game decays, and pretty fast. Players are also able to sell back money to the game in exchange for real life money. The economy works well in that game, as evidenced by how long the game has been around and growing.

Perhaps a better solution would be the adopt a model like EVE Online. In that game, you can buy a monthly subscription fee with real money or with in-game money. You can also sell the "monthly subscription" in game to other players for in-game money.

I'd like to see the whole economy laid out to us so that we can see the direction that devs see the game going. I realize they want to have to steady monthly income, but if they break the economy in a game that revolves around economic activities, their game will be destroyed.

For example, if the devs are planning on only auctioning off say 10,000 per month, and the players bid it up or down in terms of real dollars, its far easier for the devs to control the economy because they know how much gold will be entering the economy (10,000 plus X from player activities minus Y from players death and item decay). If they limited it to 100 gold per player, they could also exercise a bit more control over ensuring that the gold enters the economy spread out...not all in one city wrecking that city's economy (and drawing complaints of people who bought homes there).

I really want to see the whole economic model laid out before rushing to judgement, but my gut feeling is that the devs are rushing ahead and just "hoping" that the economy will work itself out.

 

I do not see anyone threatening. I see people who state that they will not play or support such a game and that they would share their feelings and make recommendations to friends and strangers using their First Amendment rights.
This is no different from trying to recruit backers and praising the good design elements.

 

And if you would like some answers regarding some of the topics raised in this thread; vote Here by "liking" the questions you would like the dev's to answer.

And if you don't like the questions that are posted, you are most welcomed to post your own

 

It was done, and was the main reason for my posts. I am not going to resurface them, but you can go through my posts in this thread to find them.

If you missed them then you can disregard my statements as they were not directed toward any other conversations. I have tried to remain clear that I have no problem with people expressing their opinions. It was a specific behavior I was targeting with my statements.

 

I think you misunderstand: I completely agree.
Yet by choosing "pledge rewards" that arguably have an investment character (unlike all other examples you mentioned) a problem can becreated.

Another question to ask would be: How would the IRS look at revenue from selling pledge rewards at a profit? How would they do so if it was by a company at a commercial scale?
The problem with pledge rewards starts if there is a large chance of making a profit, and if this chance is purposefully created by the one offering the reward in order to sell more of them.

Show me a PBS reward that ever did that?

 

We are probably off-topic.

I am not sure what you mean by investment character. If I pledged for PBS and got a mug, I am more than welcome to sell it and what I sell it for is between me and the buyer. Whether I get a profit or not is meaningless. Garage sales and person to person transactions are pretty much a staple in the US. The IRS only cares if you don't declare your taxes properly, and that is a problem of the individual. PBS, and Portalarium, are not in that equation. That issue has nothing to do with pledging or investing.

Many pledge drives may include things that are rare and limited. That is how part of system and how things work. Maybe you are a little confused on what actually investing is. When you invest you get cash on a regular basis as a return. A pledge is a donation in which you get a trinket as a symbol of gratitude. Those are completely different and crowdfunding is 100% pledging; not investing.

This is 100% legal, and has been a long time. In addition, like I said, the government does not care as long as the individual declares any gains as required on their taxes.

 

All I seem to hear is how high level backer/pledgers are looking to make profit. Even if they did, what does it really matter? All it means is that there is another player out there who values something slightly higher than someone else.

Some people seem to be ignoring the fact that high level backers just want to play the game like everyone else.......it would just be nice for them not having continuous unfounded accusations thrown at them over their intentions.

In terms of the actual topic, I have already said I'm not a huge fan. Although you don't really know the effect it would have until more information is released on the economy. In fact you could say the entire thread is pointless because in truth there has not been a firm indication that it is likely to happen anyway.

 

My opinion is that I like what SotA is becoming and what direction it is going. Portalarium is paving new frontiers with their plan. The current housing and crafting is great and well thought out. I don't see what the fuss is all about. I understand people like elements from other games and want SotA to embrace those. I like that SotA is unique and not a rehash of another game. I don't agree that this will break the game.

 

Just as food for further thought you might want to read this part of the wikipedia article on crowdfunding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdfunding#Investment_crowdfunding
As you can see this is an area where many nations are still adapting their laws.
I am not claiming any breach of law, I am merely pointing out that investment character pledges on traditional crowdfunding portals create legal problems, such as discussed in the wikipedia article.

To my knowledge Canada has very restrictive rules.
In any way, I can see why there is a clear need for regulation.

 

Sooooo, you don't think those wanting in-game gold sold will destroy the game through their monetary "vote?"

You think that if they allow P2W that game reviewers won't deem it as a trashed game? Outside input won't even be needed.

That's what many of us are fighting against, the destruction of what could potentially be a very good game without the economy trashed.

Aside from that, I want to be clear about something I said earlier that was not clear. I said discussing a possibility was not the same as reality. But they contradicted themselves because later they said they "would not sell power." This negated the possibility. It was no longer a possibility but a finite statement that they would not take this approach.

You can't have both statements without utterly pitting both sides against each other before the game is even launched.

I know you think I'm arguing just for the sake of it or having the last word but I cannot let my words be misconstrued.

 

Ok, backing off this unless we want a new thread but from that article I will point to this...

There is no expectation of profits from Portalarium; therefore this is not a security. I know you are saying that selling a reward for profit qualifies, but that is a secondary transaction that does not involve Portalarium or Kickstarter. Obviously laws can change, but this process is no different than PBS giving mugs to raise operating expenses, and you then selling that mug for more than your pledge.

Edit: BTW thanks for the link.

 

No, I don't. But that is a different subject. Even if the game is destroyed they are performing a legal, allowed function of the game (if selling is done) and are not committing libel.

Just like stealing from a company is illegal, but using a coupon that reduces the cost to free is not.

 

Folks stop the lawyer talk ... and go vote for questions you want answers to that concern issues raised in this thread Here

 

Probably but it's related to economics of the game.

Yes, it really is, and I agree with all of your post. However, RG promised the property would not lose its value (by keeping it rare and limited persistent housing and limiting all housing to drive up property values), and those who purchased at those tier levels are demanding that no other forms of housing are introduced, to insure their "investment." It's not "just" a "donation" or "trinket" to them. They are fighting against anyone's ability to own (earn!) an instanced house or even a room in an Inn.

They step over the line, and this must be addressed. Otherwise it is a return that they not only expect, but demand a return on. I never saw anyone who got a mug or book through PBS demand or expect it to hold its value and shut out every other potential donor.

 

You completely misunderstand what I said. My argument was not that they are not in compliance with a law, my argument was that there are legal issues currently heavily debated in various countries, with some of them banning anything that even remotely resembles investment and with some of them regulating pledges with investment character in the same way they regulate investments. I read a variety of blogs about law topics, some of them daily, and while this particular discussion is not really an interest of mine, there is a lot on those topics on the net.
If you think I am directly talking about the US and Portalarium here, you do not seem to see the forest for all the trees. In fact I do not doubt for a second that they are operating within the law.

Also, you misinterpret the part about "expectation of profit", but I feel clarifying that takes us really to far off topic.

 

So high level backers are fighting against something that doesn't actually exist?

or is it more of certain people persistently hammering backers with their own personal petition to try and make something exist that was never intended?

I believe there is been talk over instanced rooms in an inn environment, don't particularly have any issues with it......it should be explored and discussed to understand benefits and restrictions........but if it is to happen it should be a focus for the 2nd release update. There are many things that need to be done that are planned for release 1 (only 10 months left), so as a backer I wouldn't particularly like to see significant programming time being diverted onto something that was never planned at the expense of things that were.

Housing is also off topic btw.

 

Could you please refrain from spamming this thread with the same link? Thank you!

 

No worries, won't post it again ... but encouraging folks to get answers seems a little more productive to me

just saying

 

For real? Pay to play means I can buy the best items and bypass the eexperience to obtain it, subscriptions gives money to the game designers to get paid for new content creation and in no way impacts the game world. Very big difference. FTP with micro transactions are a joke and ruin game economies.

 

Seriously before highlighting someone elses comments you should understand what is being said. Most people thought the same way and righfully so. Go back and tell the devs your misinformation/Direction tactic failed. Whether it was assumption or misunderstanding is irrelavent.