Goblin Squad Member
|
In a separate thread I mentioned how items purchased in cash shops can lead to in-game inflation. A carefully run and controlled shop might be able to contain inflation, but normally only if the cash shop itmes do not integrate directly with the "normal" in-game economy and currency. Once players can trade in-game currency (gold, ISK, or whatever it is) for cash shop currencies (Gems, PLEX or whatever type THAT is) imbalances occur. Here's an example (open for discussion so the other thread isn't totally wrecked):
Here's an example using GW2's Gems from their Cash Shop (the values are just examples so the math is clear). Player A spends his first week questing hard for 100 hours and earns 1000 gold. He does not use the cash shop so ends the week with 1000 gold. In the same week Player B buys (from GW2's store) 100 Gems for $10. Then quests hard for 100 hours and earns 1000 gold. Player B puts his Gems on the market and sells them to Player A for 500 gold. At the end of week one Player A has 500 gold and 100 Gems. Player B has 1500 gold. So, Player A expended 100 hours of work, has 500 gold (5 gold per hour of work) plus 100 Gems of unknown value (their value will vary). Player B has expended 100 hours of work and has 1500 gold (15 gold per hour of work). Player B has three times the gold and can bid up desirable items, crafting materials or anything else he/she wants to control, while (more often than not) inflating the price due to his/her additional wealth. NOTE: Buying the Gems might pay off in the long run, as their value often increases significantly over time.
While Player A could have kept his 500 gold, players willing and able to dish out cash at the cash shop will find buyers, accumulate additional wealth, and tilt the economy towards inflation. Game developers want, and usually need the cash inflow, but reckless cash shop management can totally wreck an in-game economy from developers' "cash grab" mentality (you have seen them in action, and that is where the complaints of the "Buy to Win" cash shops originate), even though the might think they have not changed the economy. (Many developers like to think they can control inflation by the "faucet and drain" theory of in-game currencies, but those currencies can become warped by the intrusion of outside influences...namely cash shop items resellable for other types of in-game currencies.
@Hardin
To introduce inflation you have to show where extra gold has entered the system. The gold 2000 in this case is still in the system, it has not been added to in anyway shape or form all that has happened is it has moved from one wallet to another.
While in the short run richer players can buy gems and get gold by selling them that is absolutely no different to a time rich player grinding an extra 100 hours each month for another 1000 gold.
MMO economies are not like the real world economy because they are not fiat money systems where new money is created by leveraging existing money and attaching debt to it.
Show this causing extra gold to enter the system and you have a point. Claiming it causes inflation by saying richer players can bid up prices does not work for the following reasons
1) It is not the only way of becoming a richer player
2) Richer players won't stay rich for long if they keep bidding things up
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once players can trade in-game currency (gold, ISK, or whatever it is) for cash shop currencies (Gems, PLEX or whatever type THAT is) imbalances occur.
Are you worried about this happening in PFO? I have not yet read anything to indicate that you'll be able to spend in-game Coin in order to acquire Cash Shop Skymetal Bits.
While Player A could have kept his 500 gold, players willing and able to dish out cash at the cash shop will find buyers, accumulate additional wealth, and tilt the economy towards inflation.
I don't believe this is how inflation works.
Consider how the situation would be any different if Player A bought Player B's time as a guard instead of gems, while Player B still had time to earn his own 1,000 Coin otherwise. At the end of that week, this will create the same situation you describe above, but I don't think most people would consider it inflationary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting thread Hardin (I'm always saying "sounds interesting" like Homer Simpson, but I mean it!)... I'm not an economist but I often find myself surrounded by them in RL, fly-on-the-wall like.
I was reading some recent articles on in-game economies that would add some spice to the discussion:
Guild Wars 2 Economy Review by Ramin Shokrizade
Coin is scarce, which is good as it makes the primary currency economy tight. This is essential because the game hosts charge about $1.25 per 100 gems, and players can trade gems for coins with each other. The hosts take a cut of all such transactions, which is about 15%. This acts as a money sink on the economy. Since Experience is almost valueless, but coin is extremely valuable, wealth is the primary achievement metric in the game. Being able to purchase this metric makes the game somewhat “pay to win” as the primary game objects are for sale.
Inflation as I understand it and the difference between RL and Game World:
The F-Words Of MMOs: Faucets by Simon Ludgate
The problem with inflation is that "inflation" is a poorly understood term. Trust good ol' Wikipedia to clear it up: "The term 'inflation' originally referred to increases in the amount of money in circulation, and some economists still use the word in this way. However, most economists today use the term 'inflation' to refer to a rise in the price level."
Thus, we need to use two distinct terms:
Increase in price means that the prices of goods have gone up. This means that, if an NPC vendor changes his prices from 300G for a horse to 400G for a horse, or average prices for a stack of potions on the auction house go from 10G to 15G, price inflation has occurred.
Increase in money supply means the amount of money in circulation. If the total amount of gold on your game server was 1000G yesterday and is 1100G today, money supply inflation has occurred.
& further on...
Thus, getting back to Stites' description of faucets, his fear that inflation would make the game difficult for new players is completely unfounded.
Provided that your game is well-designed, that all key goods needed by new players have floor and ceiling prices, all new players will have the same opportunities to earn and spend money no matter how much money is in circulation or how inflated player-market prices are.
Take, for example, World of Warcraft. Players can basically treat WoW as a single-player game, questing on their own, earning money on their own, and spending it at vendors on their own.
Neither the game's money supply nor inflation in the auction house have actual bearing on the experience of a new player who sticks to the game's solo content. However, at some point, that player might click on an auctioneer... and what happens then?
This is where I get to repeat myself. Time = Money. I said it back in Part 1; I'm saying it again now. It's a basic, crucial truth upon which every economic reality is based.
Finally an eg that popped up recently explained in EVE ONLINE:
RPS: Okay, I don’t know. I’ll have to think about it. I’ve heard people talk about the concept of ‘mudflation’ in MMOs. Is that when the price of mud becomes too high?
Dr Eyjó: No, it’s basically what happens when stuff evolves – you get more stuff in and a lot of stuff that used to be good is not so good anymore, so everything just inflates, so when you come into the game as a new player…
[an announcement interrupts the doctor. He patiently waits for the announcement to finish]
Dr Eyjó: So with ‘mudflation’, [the term] relates to the old MUD games – multi-user dungeons – that were just text-based games. If you were coming into the game as a new player after other people had played it for a long while, you would never catch up to them. It was just ridiculous because it just kept growing and growing and it was difficult to get there. In EVE we are very much aware that new players need a path in order for them to participate – they don’t need to be the best right away – but they need to participate in the game. So we designed the game in such a way so that it’s beneficial for old players to get new players with them because they can use them as scouts or they can use them as foot soldiers in bigger battles. And that’s really why we don’t think we would have ‘mudflation’ in EVE.
RPS: So you think EVE is immune to it?
Dr Eyjó: It’s not immune but you do have to be aware of it and design the system so that everybody has a role.
& later on the "imbalance with the PLEX" due to a system (time = money):
RPS: So, why did you have to…
Dr Eyjó: Intervene on the market?
RPS: Yes.
Dr Eyjó: The item is sold on an open Free Market. It’s therefore very important, for all of those who depend on having PLEX available, that the price fluctuations are not severe. Because if you have a system where you’re trying to earn money [in-game] to buy your PLEX with ISK and all of a sudden there’s a 50% increase in price, it impacts your ability to be able to play the game because you can no longer afford it. However, the price can change over time and you can adjust your systems to ensure that’s not a problem. But in this case we noticed a bubble being formed and the bubble was being formed because of a broken system in another place in the game. So there was a completely different system that gave people a bigger opportunity to earn revenue, they were using that revenue to invest in PLEXs.
RPS: What was that? What was the thing that players were doing?
Dr Eyjó: In factional warfare – another feature of the game – it was going really, really well but there was just an imbalance in the way [players] were able to acquire wealth through that system. So, we had to rebalance that.
I've stitched those together, because they seem related and very intelligently stated, more understanding than I am of economics and virtual economies and monetization. Hence not really analysing the OP's eg. But for light reference. :) So I think Hardin is on to something according to "Pay-To-Win" and also that Time = Money and where the relationship with inflation is and what design mitigates or promotes that. Simon Ludgate is very interesting on Inflation if you click that particular link (learning here).
The price of goods though in an mmo is totally down to supply and demand, prices only rise when demand exceeds supply and then fall as supply improves.
What ccp did with the plex issue was to put an offer on plex and sold more so more were available on the market. My original contention that cash shops do not contribute to inflation is unchanged by that.
Inflation of prices is totally down to a lack of supply, selling skymetal is not going to cause prices of goods to rise across the board. Just as selling plex did not cause price rises in eve.
Scarcity of plex or sky metal will cause the price of those to rise but that is not general inflation merely a single commodity being rare. Hardins point was because people can get rich by selling sky metal it will cause inflation which it won't. If too many people sell it the price of sky metal will in fact decrease on the market.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
At the end of the week in the original example, player A has 500 gold and gems with a current market value of about 500 gold. Player B has 1500 gold. The price of gold is about 500 gold per $10. The cost of Player A's labor is about $10/50 hours.
As long as the goblin balls are only redeemable for training time means that it acts almost independently of the other economies. As long as there is competition among sellers of dragon balls, the effect will be negligible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the end of the week in the original example, player A has 500 gold and gems with a current market value of about 500 gold. Player B has 1500 gold. The price of gold is about 500 gold per $10. The cost of Player A's labor is about $10/50 hours.
As long as the goblin balls are only redeemable for training time means that it acts almost independently of the other economies. As long as there is competition among sellers of dragon balls, the effect will be negligible.
The effect will not be negligible, they are following the Eve example for dragon balls.
In Eve, you can buy PLEX with in game money. So... the person selling the PLEX gets your game money, and they get game time.
The person with the real cash gets game money for it.
Its the same thing as selling game money for cash, the only difference is that the game company, CCP in Eve's case, gets the real cash and not the farmer.
This alone has destroyed Eve's in game economy. Completely destroyed it. I remember being able to PVP plenty with the ISK (eves currency) I made from running missions. Now it has become a real grind to make enough ISK running missions, or even pirate hunting to be able to PVP enough to make the game enjoyable.
It is the only drawback I see so far with PFO. Selling game time for game money will drive up the cost of game items. It will go up slow, but it will continue to raise at a constant rate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lots of good stuff
I understand what you are saying. In theory you are correct. In practice though, no matter how its done. Selling game money for RL cash causes inflation.
No matter who gets the RL cash, its still selling game money for RL cash.
In the case of PLEX, CCP gets the RL cash.
Yes, the game money comes from another player. It always comes from another player. Whether it is a farmer selling it or done with the PLEX concept. Someone worked for the game money.
I have seen the cost of almost everything in Eve double since I started playing in 2006. Battleships I bought then for 45mill cost 80mill now. I used to buy a Carrier back in 2007 for 700mill, now they cost 1.3bill.
And so on...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those costs are not higher because of PLEX, they are high because players learn to game the system. They find the quickest way to make the most money, and overload the market with isk, lowering its value. What you are describing is regular inflation in any game. If you compare isk in 2006 and now, you will find that the value of isk lower now. Same outcome as the $, but for a different reason.
I think the real problem people have with connecting real money to game money is that someone is gaining benefits for no other reason than they have excess money in their game budget. People didn't like PLEX because it allowed new players to sidestep the hard work the vets went through.
I want the game to be a flat subscription model with no cash shop, but that's not how to be profitable in the current game market. There are too many games out there, and nobody can hold enough players to make enough with subscriptions alone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there is confusion on what inflation is
Inflation: Definition of 'Inflation'
The rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising, and, subsequently, purchasing power is falling.
A amazing example of this is when the US Currency went from the Gold Standard to the Silver Standard.
For inflation to occur the value of your money must lower while the cost of goods rise. Just like 50cent was worth a hell of a lot more 50 years ago then it is now.
all Buying and Selling PLEX for example will do is allow you to exchange Cash for ISK while that player exchanges ISK for game time. No one is adding ISK to the market with this transaction.
The Value of ISK is not going down. depending on the demand this might cause the value of PLEX to go up which would mean you could buy less PLEX for the same amount of ISK however the ISK value remains the same.
The only way Inflation occurs in a MMO is when there are too many "Faucets" and not enough "Drains"
This means players generate (via game mechanics such as mob killing) vastly more money over time then players spend (via game mechanics such a taxes or repair costs) This means over time players get more and more money the more money that is collectively held by all players, the lower the value of that money.
Quantity goes up, Value goes down.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There is one factor in inflation: If a bigger faucet comes into play, the currency will lose value. If a bigger drain comes into play, the currency will gain value.
When you treat the currency like any other product and measure direct supply and demand curves for things that create and destroy currency, then things start to look simpler than if you try to keep the currency at constant value and measure prices.
The bigger faucet devalues the hour of (newly) suboptimal grinding of currency, because it now takes fewer hours to get the same amount of currency. If you don't adapt to the new faucet, you will underprice the market and sell out of goods while there are still buyers looking.
New drains, even if they only touch the largest organizations, reduce the currency available, raising the value of the currency; more hours are spent getting the currency to throw down the new drain, and that has to come from somewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One simple example, following the Faucet and Drain idea.
The exact opposite has happened in Eve. People who spend their RL cash for game money blow their game money on ships like crazy. So the demand goes up, and the price goes up, But there is still more then enough supply to bring the price down... It just keeps going up.
There are more players in game making ships, the quantity of ships in game has stayed relative to the population... but the cost is still going up. So the supply and demand concept does not apply like it does in RL.
Of course, the value of ISK is lower... The prices on everything has risen. So has the value of PLEX with game money.
Sure you have plenty of people who game the system when they can... But that always gets nerfed. If there is a way in Eve to make quick ISK constantly it will be changed so thats not possible in the future.
CCP is doing yet another change to the build costs of ships and supplies required. That has also affected things.
Another thing that CCP has done... They have nerfed money making in game completely. Missions, Ratting, Mining, Complexes, everything has been nerfed to produce less income.
They are forcing casual players to buy PLEX to compete.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Here's the question: What are the shipbuilders spending their ISK on? If they are spending on materials, what are the people upstream spending ISK on?
If mining isn't very profitable even with the best mining rig, and buying minerals and making stuff isn't profitable, even with the best building-stuff setup, how are the users of PLEX buying them?
I also doubt that casual players have ever been able to compete in the top levels and meta-levels of Eve.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Casual gamers cannot 'compete' with power gamers or those that have a heap of spare time to throw at games. It's a simple fact of gaming.
GW2 tried to combat this with the whole 'play as you like'. Getting rid of the trinity and speeding up advancement etc etc. The problem is in-game currency still hampers casual players though. Those with meta builds, or power guilds doing speed clears or just simply spending hours upon hours farming will always have more currency and be able to buy more things, subsequently pushing market prices up. In the end, trying to cater to everyone just ends up not working very well for anyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I have seen, the profit margins for building ships is minimal. It has to be done on a grand scale to be profitable. The people upstream are the big empires in 0.0. They make isk off the other members of the Alliances, and off the passive moon incomes. They basically make other members haul in the required recources to fuel the towers, and take the profits. Granted running an Alliance is like herding cats... it is its own grind.
The only real way to make isk on a personal level is to grind. Whether is grinding missions, complexes, or mining. You have to do alot of it to have fun in the game.
From what I figured out, I had a free week at home (no family around) so I ratted (grining NPC's). With no real superior spawns, It took me a full day of non stop grinding to buy a ship to fly the next night. I lost the ship in my first two hours (killed plenty of others) and was back to grining for the next day.
So... In the off days I had. 14 hours of grinding for 2 hours of fun.
Which is why I dont really play right now. And dont misunderstand. I have done it all in Eve, Ran an Alliance, Mining and Industry, Missions, Ganking, etc... Everything is time consuming.
Eve in recent years has introduced a couple of new faucets which were to say the least highly unbalanced compared to the drains. I am talking about specifically about incursions and faction warfare. Though they have been rebalanced now.
This injected large amounts of isk into the economy which is still floating around. People forget often in Eve that PVP isn't an isk drain, it merely takes finished products out of the economy it does not actually take money out. In fact it even injects new isk into the system due to insurance payouts which are generated out of thin air. PVP also of course has the knock on effect of reducing the supply side of the equation a little.
eg
there are 10 fully fit tempest BS and the total isk pool is 1 billion
1 gets destroyed and the payout for insurance is 20 mill
there are now 9 fully fit tempest bs and the total isk pool is 1bill + 20mill
It is likely that the price of a tempest bs therefore will rise.
Of course in Eve there are so many ships made that the destruction of 1 barely causes a ripple. Nevertheless it is clear PVP is still a faucet not a drain as some believe and reduces the supply leading to inflation
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's another interesting situation in EVE, probably familiar to some: How a clever player with a “useless” item almost took down EVE Online’s entire economy
So it made sense to go after expensive ships, earn loyalty points, and then trade those in for better items. Suddenly there was a good incentive to take down powerful ships, or at least ships that were carrying expensive items.
One player went to work on gaming the system.
I guess this was an incentive for a more attractive pvp drain?? I'm beginning to think a successful Settlement will have a good economist on 'the board'!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes that was certainly an interesting manipulation, loyalty points were what he gained though with which you can buy goods which can then be sold on for isk.
All markets can be manipulated and it is certainly something PfO will need to watch out for. As I said before though PVP in Eve is not a drain it is a slightly inflationary pressure if anything as it reduces supply while increasing the total isk supply.
The lp thing was introduced to make the faction warfare more attractive to do as I believe in the beginning it was poorly utilised. Nowadays it is still putting massive amounts of isk into the eve economy, I have seen figures of 100 million isk per hour bandied around for faction warfare complex running. I am not sure how accurate that number is however.
Currently in eve the faucets are faction warfare bounties,incursions,mission bounties,mission rewards,rat bounties,insurance payouts
the drains are insurance fees,market fees,money spent on goods from lp stores,skillbook costs,blueprint costs,manufacturing taxes,npc corp taxes
Everything else is merely moving money from one player to another*
The only other input to the economy is miners who increase the supply side by shoving ore into the system
*Yes quite possibly I missed one or two I haven't reached my second coffee of the day yet :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hardin
To introduce inflation you have to show where extra gold has entered the system...
You appear to be considering only one half of the equation. There is coin and there is what you can buy with that coin.
You cannot rightly look only at the quantity of coin in the game, you have to relate that coin to what it is worth. Where the worth of things has increased (scarcity, whether artificial or natural) the currency is devalued, and the economy is inflated. Where it once took only a coin to purchase a ration, it now takes five. The supply of coin can remain the same, but each coin may buy less. If at OE there is a major increase in player population the demand on the market will skyrocket. Supply will likely take awhile to rebalance. Prices will soar. Gradually supply should catch up, gradually the supply of coin will increase, but in the interim you have inflation.
This is one positive aspect of the limited rate of new player enrollment GW has proposed. The impact on the markets should prove moderated by that policy.
'Printing money' is not the only cause for inflation: the drastically increased market that came with globalizing the economy is also a cause for inflation.
@Being
I was talking in relation to plex causing inflation in the total economy. It is certainly true to say there is inflation in eve, that however is due to the fact that more isk enters from the faucets I mentioned above than leaves via the drains.
Plex itself however can become an inflating item as it did recently when the number wishing to buy it for isk outstrips those wanting to sell it. That can easily be adjusted as was indeed done and makes money for CCP in the so doing which is ultimately good for the game as well.
Goblinworks have stated already they will be using faucets and drains just as CCP do and that they want to see a reasonable inflation rate which is good for mmo economies.
I am probably in Hardin's camp on the whole I would prefer not to have cash shops. On the subject of plex/sky metal though I much prefer that to having rampant botting and goldselling in the game which is what you will get without it.
In short the inflation that has been seen in eve would have happened with or without plex, what I am fighting here is that plex/skymetal causes inflation because it is trivial (the only inflationary effect being its own supply/demand model) compared to the ballooning of the total isk supply from the faucets which constantly devalue the isk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ ZenPagan I think my point is that the influx of isk is necessary because the size of the economy is increasing. Where the number of players increases the availability of isk is required. At the strategic level yes there is more isk entering the economy, but each new player is also a new drain on that economy until they generate more than they consume.
@Being the isk total is estimated last I saw to grow by 5% (20 to 30 trillion isk ) a month. New players from day 1 generate more isk than they consume by a long shot. The sinks are pretty small in eve and I listed them below.
There are very few ways that isk leaves the system despite what people believe.
Interestingly as you may or may not be aware eve employs a fulltime economist and I was sure he must have produced some stats so I went looking and found this
The point of posting the graph was really to show that it is quite possible to manage a sandbox mmo's market and quell a few fears about the in game selling of sky metal.
Most of the market spikes in Eve have indeed caused by player actions, hulkageddon, burn jita etc
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The influx of new players will have a chaotic effect on the market; it's hard to tell if the effect of people stockpiling in anticipation of higher prices from more demand will be greater or lesser than the effect of new players adding demand.
No agent should ever predict that they will change their position in the future without getting any new information; if the influx is as large as expected and acts as expected, there will not even be chaotic effects.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All economies with fiat money (like MMOs in general) have an inflation risk. And all fiat money economies have the ability to be manipulated to reduce inflation. In the real world those measures are hard because they mean a loss of savings and employment. In an MMO it's much easier to squash inflation because the methods mean (usually) a small number of obscenely rich players become slightly less obscenely rich; but in general the community is happier with inflation managed than when it goes haywire.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not opposed entirely to cash shops. But I have played several games where the cash shops were ill conceived by the game company and it wrecked the economy. Even in games with no cash shop the economy can become a wreck if the faucets are on full blast and the drains are clogged. (I would prefer an economy where the faucets are broken and the drains work...that would force the players to barter more and fiddle with the in game currency less.)
Still, my main point in posting was a poorly regulated cash shop, especially with an alternate in game currency, can cause problems. If the cash shop is done well and there is no crossover in the different currency types, it can work, but is seldom well designed.
Blizzard tried to undercut the gold farmers in Diablo III by using RMT (Real Money Transaction) allowing players to sell their in game merchandise in a real money cash shop. I didn't play D3 but understand it didn't work out as planned. Worse, the IRS is looking at player profits in RMTs and is now trying to regulate that income as taxable.
All interesting facets of an in game economy. Since Ryan just posted he is surely and painfully aware of the nuances of how in game economies can work well, and how many have worked poorly. This ought to be fun to see what happens!
@Hardin
That we can certainly agree on cash shops when done wrong can screw the entire game and mmo economies can be hugely mismanaged. I tend to take the view that as Ryan comes from an Eve background and that is fairly well done that things will be ok
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not opposed entirely to cash shops. But I have played several games where the cash shops were ill conceived by the game company and it wrecked the economy. Even in games with no cash shop the economy can become a wreck if the faucets are on full blast and the drains are clogged. (I would prefer an economy where the faucets are broken and the drains work...that would force the players to barter more and fiddle with the in game currency less.)
Still, my main point in posting was a poorly regulated cash shop, especially with an alternate in game currency, can cause problems. If the cash shop is done well and there is no crossover in the different currency types, it can work, but is seldom well designed.
Blizzard tried to undercut the gold farmers in Diablo III by using RMT (Real Money Transaction) allowing players to sell their in game merchandise in a real money cash shop. I didn't play D3 but understand it didn't work out as planned. Worse, the IRS is looking at player profits in RMTs and is now trying to regulate that income as taxable.
All interesting facets of an in game economy. Since Ryan just posted he is surely and painfully aware of the nuances of how in game economies can work well, and how many have worked poorly. This ought to be fun to see what happens!
Ramin seems to be writing a number of articles recently, possibly a lead-up to something bigger... anyway this might interest Hardin:
"Free" is Getting Very Expensive
[Concluding paragraph] Note that these are two of my favorite franchises, so I really want both of these games to be successful. I also think there is a real market for super premium games with more aggressive monetization models. Ten years after the launch of EVE Online and World of Warcraft we should be capable of making some amazing games for our consumers. The ultimate measure of how these online games perform is the quality of the player interactions in these games. If players are having a lot of fun with other people, they will pay a premium. But here the egg must come before the chicken. They should not have to spend a lot in order to be able to have a positive social experience. Taking this one step further, if I can spend to lower the experience of other players, this will cause a rapid collapse of revenues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...In my experience, people who gripe about people with time or money is people who are rich in one and poor in another. Terms like "fair", "game-balance", etc. are too often used as trappings for an agenda.
It just as likely that those who gripe about those who gripe about 'fair' and 'game-balance' also have an agenda. They are human, and humans have agendas.
Not having an agenda is far more suspect than having one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you really want a "fair" economy, limit the time a player can be on per week to a certain number of hours. That's "fair", right?If you limit everyone's game time to, say, 28 hours per week then we will all be fair and equal, right? So that guy flunking college to farm 100 hours a week of in game currency for his "epeen of powerful power" may actually get a life.
If you want to be "fair" and "equal", then TIME, as well as money, must be considered.
Hehe, the ultimate solution? Fairness is important but I think people accept that some people have more time or more money and usually one but not the other and hopefully some of each!
For Goblin Works time rich players would be perfect as they want players to spend time or money and preferably both on the game! Time suggests there may be fun in the game and money suggests that fun has value if replicated across more people?
Activity in-game is essential in an mmorpg overall and hopefully creates more allies/enemies (opportunities of), which makes more drama for all players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Avena, I am not for equal outcomes. Instead I am opposed to players creating too much unfun for other players. [Sure, this can mean a lot, but largely the griefing we all know, or serious imbalances and exploits. Not bandits being bandits. They have a legit role to play.] In fact, I strongly promote unequal outcomes. If a player plays smart, works hard, teams up, specializes, betters his/her settlement, that is all good stuff. On the other hand different smart players might go solo, explore the world, craft at home, role play, socialize, hang out in a tavern or anything else that creates a fun experience for them. Those are all valid ways to enjoy a game.
What I am against (as noted above) is a broken game mechanic that allows a player to gain unfair advantage(s) through exploits, griefing, or paying RL cash to strongly influence his personal game outcomes. I really don’t think developers have ever set out to do this last one, but due to their shortsightedness (specifically in their cash shops) they have allowed this to happen, which was a side effect of their eagerness to implement a cash shop (even though it would be known to cause problems).
I listed some items in a different thread that might be fun cash shop items that would not create imbalances but might be fun (some folks though some of them would not be fun, and that’s okay). But my concern was carefully regulating cash shops to prevent imbalances, inflation, or to allow some players to gain unfair advantages just because they have piles of RL cash. Some players will have more time than others, and will play more, creating more enjoyment for themselves, some have little time but want to play and have fun. Having a game environment where both types of players can have enjoyable experiences at their own pace is (I think) one of the main reasons players come to MMOs.
(NOTE: I have real a number of Ramin Shokrizade's postings and the reader comments. I'm still working out some of his theories, but if that is his specialty and it is working, he must be doing something right. I'll keep reading up!)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The basic transaction that occurs when one player buys gold from another (either illegally from a gold farmer or legally by selling a PLEX-like item [in PFO, we are jokingly referring to these as "Goblin Balls" until GW gives us a proper name]) is that one player is paying $$ for another player's time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Player A doesn't have much time to play, but he doesn't want to fall forever behind other players and he has some extra $$. Player B has a ton of time to play, but he can't afford (or otherwise wishes not to pay) a monthly subscription.
Player A pays Player B's monthly subscription in exchange for the fruits of some hours of Player B's playtime, measured in gold. Player As are now able to experience the game as they wish (now being able to afford rare, top-tier items without playing more than they are able to or want to). Player Bs can continue their subscription where they otherwise may have to cancel it and/or can better adjust their $$ spending on the game to something they are more comfortable with.
The players that this doesn't benefit, Player Cs, are poor in both playtime and $$. But they aren't made worse off, either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There isn't much reason to not allow players to make this mutually beneficial arrangement. The only really good one is the example in EvE that somebody posted, where there was one way to farm gold that was significantly faster than others. This skewed PLEX purchases towards these players and away from all other types of players, which is undesirable as it reduces the benefit of having the system there for Player Bs in the first place.
I think the recent thread about types of players is somewhat telling for why there is pushback against this idea:
Some players may feel that wealth is an achievement that is properly awarded to the Player Bs of the world for putting in the time to accumulate it. They dislike it when other Player Bs redistribute their wealth, which diminishes their own accomplishment.
I've seen this sentiment in games without PLEX-like systems, too. In WoW, many people would get very upset if a rich player created a ton of an expensive item and sold them at a loss on the AH or gave them away to new players. Essentially, the offended party felt they should be able to restrict another player's freedom to do with their wealth what they pleased because that player was diminishing the offended's own wealth (accomplishments).
I like to think of it like this: Instead of just competing against the players that have a lot of time to invest in the gameworld, I'm also competing against the players that have a lot of $$ to invest in the gameworld. The great thing about a Goblin Balls item is that a character can only use them up at a rate of 1 per month, which acts to naturally slow down the market for them. Also, if a Player A or group of Player As throws a ton of money at GW in order to buy Goblin Balls, they will get less and less gold for each as they accumulate a higher and higher percentage of the total world wealth. Also, Goblinworks can (and Ryan has stated elsewhere that he will) manipulate the supply and therefore gold price of Goblin Balls by changing the $$ cost of Goblin Balls (just as the EvE developers did in an example that another poster put forth in this thread).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There are some types of players that view the acquisition of ingame items as the intrinsic goals of the game. Those players are angered by other players who earn them by means other than playing the game.
There are other players who see the equipment as instrumental goals, which are prerequisites for playing the game. Those players see no problem with other players having those things without earning them.
There is a third type of player that sees arbitrage on that stuff AS the game.
Most actual people are some mixture of the various types.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are some types of players that view the acquisition of ingame items as the intrinsic goals of the game. Those players are angered by other players who earn them by means other than playing the game.
There are other players who see the equipment as instrumental goals, which are prerequisites for playing the game. Those players see no problem with other players having those things without earning them.
There is a third type of player that sees arbitrage on that stuff AS the game.
Most actual people are some mixture of the various types.
Hah, I was just adding a few paragraphs to my post to include that =P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Eve in recent years has introduced a couple of new faucets which were to say the least highly unbalanced compared to the drains. I am talking about specifically about incursions and faction warfare. Though they have been rebalanced now.
This injected large amounts of isk into the economy which is still floating around. People forget often in Eve that PVP isn't an isk drain, it merely takes finished products out of the economy it does not actually take money out. In fact it even injects new isk into the system due to insurance payouts which are generated out of thin air. PVP also of course has the knock on effect of reducing the supply side of the equation a little.
eg
there are 10 fully fit tempest BS and the total isk pool is 1 billion
1 gets destroyed and the payout for insurance is 20 mill
there are now 9 fully fit tempest bs and the total isk pool is 1bill + 20mill
It is likely that the price of a tempest bs therefore will rise.
Of course in Eve there are so many ships made that the destruction of 1 barely causes a ripple. Nevertheless it is clear PVP is still a faucet not a drain as some believe and reduces the supply leading to inflation
I get what your saying. The math is a bit off though.
eg.
10 fully fit tempests about 1bill
1 gets destroyed... 20 mill insurance
there are 9 fully fit tempests and the total isk pool is 800mill + 20mill
It is by no means clear that pvp is a faucet. It is a drain. I PVP as much as I am ISK able. And I pour through ISK like a faucet trying to fill an ocean.
I fly all ship types.
A better EG
1 fully fit tempest costs 200 mill, 150mill for the ship and another 50 mill to be fully T2 fit.
Insurance costs roughly 30 mill if you want full payout which gives you 80 mill. (not in game so both numbers are a guess)
So before you even undock from station you payed 230 mill. When it blows up you will receive 80 mill back for insurance. Meaning the exploded isk for you is 150 mill.
And you can lose that one ship with 15 minutes of play... or it can take you hours.
Now there is a chance you can pick up what did not blow up in your wreck, but that is not likely. Ive been in plenty of fleets that the FC will have you blow up any wrecks on the field so the enemy cannot have them.
The above math does not count for T2 ships... when calculating them, just remove the insurance... You only get 5mill for a Heavy Assault Ship, and the ship costs 150 mill.
PVP is a pure drain.
Even without insurance the destruction of a ship causes no isk loss from the total pool. What it actually achieves is lowerering supply. The figures btw weren't meant to be accurate they were just made up to illustrate
to take your figures though
fully fit tempest 200 mill
insurance 30 mill
insurance payout 80 mill
so player a has 230 mill and player b has a fully fit tempest therefore total isk in system is 230 mill
player a buys tempest for 200 mill
player a now has 30 mill and fully fit tempest, player b has 200 mill
total isk in system is 230 mill
player a insures tempest for 30 mill
player a now has a tempest and 0 isk player b has 200 mill
total isk in system is 200 mill hence insurance premium is a net drain of 30 mill
Player a gets blown up
Player A now has no tempest but has 80 mill insurance. player b has 200 mill
total isk in system 280 mill
therefore in an insured ship pvp results in 50 million isk in the system extra and is a faucet as stated
Take insurance out and you lose the 80 million insurance payout but also the 30 million insurance cost
hence pvp results in no net isk loss.
Destruction of the ship however does entail a supply side loss of 1 tempest
Therefore we can see tempest is in shorter supply so the price rises at the same time as either at best the isk pool remains the same and at worse the isk pool is increased
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know, I get what you were saying. I just dont agree.
Yeah, the ISK is "mostly" in the system. Someone has it, it gets shuffled around.
Regardless the ISK has to be made. I either grind for the isk by ratting, or the other guy has to mine for the minerals to build the ship to sell me.
The faucet is the ratting, not the PVP. Sure, 50 mill was put in the system through insurance. But it wouldnt have if I didnt do the ISK grinding in the first place.
We can go round and round.
....... But we are off topic now..........
Simply put, and more on topic...
Player A is a trillionaire... They do exist in Eve
Player B makes plenty of Cash at home in RL.
Player B buys PLEX with RL Cash
Player A buys PLEX with ISK
Player B gets ISK that Player A would have never spent in the first place.
Player B buys ships and fittings (swords and armor) with ISK that would otherwise have never been spent.
Rise and Repeat
The price of said ships and fittings goes up because Player B is spending ISK that would have stayed in Player A's wallet if PLEX was never in game.
Player B would have spent time running missions, ratting, or whatever, but instead is exploding ships and items. These ships and items are being sold faster then they would have if PLEX was never in the game.
Which is causing the price to increase.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So he doesnt have to spend RL cash to play the game. He could be PLEXing 20 accounts. Selling a dozen characters on the forums to keep his income going. He is rich beyond any ability to blow his ISK.
Granted, he could buy a fleet of Titans.
In a more direct answer to your question. He could very well be spending his ISK. But if PLEX didnt exist, he wouldnt be spending that chunk of ISK.
I guess in the end, all Im saying is...
PLEX sellers do not have to spend their time earning ISK, which devalues the ISK all together and causing inflation. (by destroying ships and fittings with reckless abandon.)
I have a friend who does this. He sells a couple PLEX cards each week and blows the ISK in PVP. He spends no time what so ever making ISK because it isnt any fun. So instead spends his hard earned RL Cash. He himself considers it cheating which is kinda funny.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PLEX doesn't devalue ISK, it devalues lower tier items. Though this seems to only effect high traffic markets, everywhere else keeps prices low. I doubt the prices of multi-billion isk items have gone up more than they do with general inflation.
EVE wouldn't be what it is without PLEX, it gives casual players a way to keep their equipment up with their skills, and it gives people a chance to play for free.
Any negative effect PLEX has caused are minimal to its benefits.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The player spending less time per week playing and making it up by dropping PLEX is causing equipment to leave the world and bringing ISK into the world (via insurance). He is also causing ISK to go from PVPers to builders by purchasing equipment, and from PLEX buyers to himself.
Where is the ISK drain?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I have seen inflation run rampant in other MMO's, based upon things Ryan has stated, including his above post, I believe he and GW have learned that lesson from studying what has happened in those cases, and have plans to prevent it in PfO.
Additionally, it has been my experience that it isn't so much cash shops that lead to inflation as it is gold sellers. The "buy one million gold for $20" is what ruins MMO economies, as suddenly players have far more coins/ISK/gems/Etc... that they normally would, resulting in the ability to bid up prices and spend more than other players. Soon sellers expect to get that much for items not intrinsically worth what these gold buyers are willing to spend, making the items pricier than a non-gold buyer has the in-game money for, resulting in more gold buying, which results in yet higher prices ad nauseum. Ryan has already stated GW will be doing all it can to keep the gold farmers at bay, and thus restricting gold selling. It won't eliminate it, but most gold selling websites will likely move on to games where gold farming and selling is far easier. This alone will keep inflation and rampant buying and selling of cash shop items down to a manageable level, as the faucets will be 99% controlled by GW.
Until I hear Ryan say otherwise, for me at least, cash shop items don't worry me as they don't, at this time, appear to give unfair advantages, nor do they appear to be things that would cause inflation. Just my two coppers worth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The player spending less time per week playing and making it up by dropping PLEX is causing equipment to leave the world and bringing ISK into the world (via insurance). He is also causing ISK to go from PVPers to builders by purchasing equipment, and from PLEX buyers to himself.
Where is the ISK drain?
Clones, Private Messaging, Fleet Creation, Insurance that expires, Repairs, If you do any Planetary Interaction everything costs, and every purchase made on the market removes a percentage.
Casual players don't, and shouldn't see much of a drain, the large drains are for the players who accumulate a lot of wealth, and large organizations.