Hi.

[Riggen]

Not sure why you're going back to old posts of mine to revist things.

You suggested I was 'confused.' I was making it clear that I was not, and that required citing your original post for justification. Nothing nefarious.

I also stated I didn't necessarily include you as an anti-EQ2 freak. Why are you ignoring that statement and carrying on trying to pick an argument? I know you're not stupid, so what's the point of your strawman?

I'm not actually trying to carry on an argument about it. I find that bluntly laying all the cards on the table can sometimes defuse an argument. To wit: On Internet forums I tend to establish a baseline of responses of people with whom I hold conversations, and compare their individual responses with that baseline to evaluate intent. Considering your normal conversational tone, "I guess it doesn't apply to you" didn't sound like you were particularly convinced. You do seem to be a bit sensitive about it, so I figured some additional effort along those lines was necessary to assure you that I have no axe to grind against EQ2.

Now maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you don't give a rat's ass about EQ2 and this is all a misread. If that's the case then I apologize for drawing the issue out. I just perceived a response that was out of character for you. Give the word and we can consider the matter dropped.

I am curious about your "corrupt" idea. What is inherently corrupt about providing a secure mechanism for people to trade in-game items for real-world compensation?

Well, what's corrupt about the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports? What's corrupt about paying off a politician to further a private agenda? (IMO lobbyist capaign contributions are a corruption of our system of government since they allow money rather than reason to rule, but that's neither here nor there)

This is clearly a complete reversal of stated principle for Sony. Obviously, they were never concerned about the integrity of the game or the impact of professional farmers on legitimate players. They just hadn't figured out how to milk money from the process themselves.

This also paves the way for some major conflicts of interest that could change the way content is created and consumed. Sony is already overly dependent on cumbersome flagging and keying to stretch out their content. What do you think is going to happen to the development of new content when they can suddenly charge you for quick access to those flags and keys?

[Ddrak]

I don't see the analogy between drugs in sport or bribing politicians. Sorry, but I just don't think it's there. The best analogies I can see are legalizing drugs and ending prohibition (which are really the same thing anyway). Sony isn't actively selling anything, just providing a secure method of exchange between the real and virtual worlds. Perhaps the best way to think of it is as a state controlled beer store?

Yes, it is a complete reversal of stated principle for Sony but I do think they are very concerned about the integrity of the game and the simple fact that they very visibly banned around 700 dedicated farmers in the last few weeks seems to demonstrate that. What they hadn't figured out was how to balance the obvious consumer demand for transactions to have real-world value with a secure method of providing that exchange and doing it without unbalancing the existing game.

It should be noted that it's also a reversal of stated principle for every other MMOG on the market which have uniformly said "That's interesting - we'll wait and see how it turns out".

EQ2 isn't burdened by "cumbersome flagging and keying" in the least. Not sure where you got that idea from. I've not seen anything more burdensome than any other MMOG out there - most high level content is simply protected by the fact it will annihilate you if you aren't sufficiently experienced.

As for "conflicts of interest", I don't see it. Sony is not selling anything. They continue to make money from the subscriptions and providing the ability to exchange accounts increases the liklihood that those accounts will remain active in some form or other. However, to maintain subscribers they have to consistently develop new and interesting content - something that they've been unarguably the best in the business at with EQ2 (so far at least).

Dd

[Akhbarali]

You do realize they banned most of the plat/item farmers in the last 4 weeks, right Akhbar?

Nope. What makes you think they actually did anything effective or that it will keep them away for any amount of time? Did they release numbers of banned accounts or discuss the methods they plan on using to keep them from buying new accounts? It takes no time at all to set up again as a seller especially if they did a good job of hiding their sleeper accounts that do the heavy lifting. Did they ban people that purchased accounts or items or just the sellers?

If there is demand it will be filled. The fact that they made a show of "banning people" tells me that the demand exists on these servers. If they did effectively "ban" some high profile sellers this should keep prices nice and high on those servers (at least for a while) especially if they didn't "ban" any buyers. Sounds to me like they put on a show right before trotting out their new E-Bay policy. The sellers won't be fooled and it is doubtful the buyers will be switching servers unless action is taken against them.

Although I think the "sky is falling" position is an over-reaction the "this will be good for the real gamers on the non-E-bay servers" seems downright silly. At best they will see the status quo maintained (E-Baying will happen but be kept behind the scenes) at worst they will make those servers "E-bay enabled" as well (this discussion leads to some wonderful new terminology). Might turn out differently but I seriously doubt it. Pandora's Box has been opened and if they see a solid revenue stream it will be coming to a server near you soon. If not, the black market will continue to function as intended.


Akhbar

[Akhbarali]

As for "conflicts of interest", I don't see it. Sony is not selling anything. They continue to make money from the subscriptions and providing the ability to exchange accounts increases the liklihood that those accounts will remain active in some form or other.
Dd

I imagine they could set up "player accounts" to sell items or even characters "under the table". I've heard several designers express this reservation in the past. My rebutal has always been that for a big time public company it seems like small potatoes to be selling cyber items for $20-$200 a pop or characters for $500-$1,500 especially when it would seriously damage the integrity of the game if they were caught. Their response to me. Don't be naive. The lure of an easily tapped, virtually 100% NET profit margin revenue stream would be irresistable once they start administering this type of system. Even if they did get caught, 90% of the player base are addicts and a sizable percentage of them are also apologists for anything the company does. They wouldn't lose enough players to offset the substantial profit gains associated with item selling.

Having answered directly to owners about profitiablity for a large % of my adult life I have to admit the temptation would be pretty damn strong. Having played EQ1 for five+ years and participating on various boards the addict/apologist argument is pretty damn convincing as well. Sounds like the makings of a huge conflict of interest to me.

Akhbar

[Ddrak]

Nope. What makes you think they actually did anything effective or that it will keep them away for any amount of time? Did they release numbers of banned accounts or discuss the methods they plan on using to keep them from buying new accounts? It takes no time at all to set up again as a seller especially if they did a good job of hiding their sleeper accounts that do the heavy lifting. Did they ban people that purchased accounts or items or just the sellers?

The number they stated was "over 700". The ones that were banned were the active plat/item farmers that were camping specific areas 24/7 with bot armies to generate items for sale - basically the accounts that had a paid workforce behind them. I didn't need Sony to tell me they'd done it. It was obvious that they were gone - from their names disappearing from the "top 100 deaths" lists to the fact that when you zoned into Lavastorm they simply weren't in their usual spot farming Fire Toads.

Effectively they cut the source of items, not the middlemen or the buyers (as far as I'm aware) though I do know a bunch of accounts had items mysteriously disappear for "EULA infringement". All of this is easy to track from the eq2players site, which has info on every character in the game.

If you buy the argument that this is analogous to the ending of prohibition, you are claiming that the speakeasys will maintain their same level of business alongside legitimate bars. I'm claiming that at least some of the people involved will move to a legal system - hence the status quo will shift to a more ebay-free system on the non-ebay servers.

Honestly Akhbar, I don't see why you are maintaining the fiction that nothing will change. Will at least some of the business move servers? Obviously yes. That means there is less ebayers on the non-ebay servers. The black market will still exist, but it will be reduced - just as prohibition ending reduced illegal alcohol sales and legalizing marijuana reduces illegal marijuana sales.

In any case, it's not something they can shove back in the bottle. In fact, it's not just EQ2 - it's the entire industry.

Dd

[Akhbarali]

Honestly Akhbar, I don't see why you are maintaining the fiction that nothing will change. Will at least some of the business move servers? Obviously yes. That means there is less ebayers on the non-ebay servers. The black market will still exist, but it will be reduced - just as prohibition ending reduced illegal alcohol sales and legalizing marijuana reduces illegal marijuana sales.

Dd

Because I don't think people will change servers if they can still get the items on their own servers without being punished. I also do not think you adress these problems without crushing the demand side. The problem with the "ending prohibition" argument is that they aren't ending it on the "Non-Ebay" servers. There is only one America and they ended prohibition in America. That said, I don't think a ton of people moved to Canada or Europe during prohibition so they could buy booze. Similarly, I don't think people are going to change servers in significant numbers to make their E-bay transactions cheaper or more convenient if there are absolutely no penalties for the buyers. Sellers don't care about getting banned. If the prices are higher, they just start new accounts and the higher prices make up for the lost accounts. Buyers don't care if sellers get banned. it is none of their concern. Sounds like the status quo will be maintained to me.

Akhbar

[EQLizard]

Xtreme Stormhammer!

[gineeva]

The thing is, they made it so you can transfer servers to the 'enabled' servers. This means plat/mob farming will go through the roof..then POOF! char transferred and items sold. It will affect every server if they don't do something to protect against that.

[Burz]

Xtreme Stormhammer!

Neil Patrick Harris jizzing in the backseat!

[Ddrak]

Ginnah has a good point - in the short term (ie until end of June) it might be profitable to item/plat farm and then take the free transfer. Probably why they went through and banned the item/plat farmers before announcing this - there's not really enough time to level up a new bunch of bots prior to the movelog happening.

Akhbar has correctly identified the place the prohibition analogy breaks down - the US wasn't offering free all-expenses-paid one way tickets to Canada or Europe for people who wanted to drink.

The definition of "status quo" is interesting though - it seems to be stretching to cover the case where there actually is a reduced supply and higher risk but sales still occur.

What the real key is, is that while buyers will still exist (in necessarily lower numbers) and sellers (ie middle-men) still exist, the supply side gets destroyed. As Akhbar has no real experience with EQ2, he has missed the vital point that the suppliers to the ebay merchants were not just random people or ub9r-guilds but dedicated groups of 24/7 botting farmers that would monopolize an area consistently. EQ2's economics in no way reflect EQ1's economics - money sinks in EQ2 are honestly huge (/cough armor repair).

With the bannings of the suppliers, plat sales have been eliminated on many EQ2 servers. Supply is virtually non-existant (go check IGE's site yourself if you want). Plat farmers will migrate to ebay enabled servers (or face banning and another 2 month lag time to level up again). Status quo? Not a chance.

Dd

[Grygonos Thunderwulf]

Xtreme Stormhammer!

Neil Patrick Harris jizzing in the backseat!

NPH would do no such thing...

[Burz]

You clearly have not seen said movie.

[Burz]

(FYI, EQ1 still has more than EQ2 for all you, "OMG EQ1 is a dying game" morons)

Clearly cause of people like Ddrak that keep their eq1 account active while playing other games~

[Ddrak]

If I had to take a guess based on the trends I've seen, I'd say EQ2 is almost certain to have more active players than EQ1 at the moment, and quite possibly more subscriptions as well. Of course, WoW's subscription numbers kill both of those put together.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Of course, WoW's subscription numbers kill both of those put together.

And that is why Sony is scrambling all over the place trying to get people back so they can make money again.

[Ddrak]

See Riggen - that's the sort of people I mean by the anti-EQ2 freaks.

:)

Dd

[Riggen]

I don't see the analogy between drugs in sport or bribing politicians

Look at it this way: An athlete using performance enhancers has an unfair advantage over others who stay within the rules. It would be absurd to expect the rules to be changed to permit this behavior.

Perhaps the best way to think of it is as a state controlled beer store?

More like a state controlled heroin den.

It should be noted that it's also a reversal of stated principle for every other MMOG on the market which have uniformly said "That's interesting - we'll wait and see how it turns out".

I agree. In fact I already mentioned it (at least in Blizzard's case).

EQ2 isn't burdened by "cumbersome flagging and keying" in the least.

I wasn't referring specifically to EQ2, though it does piss me off that basic access to various common points in the game world is quest restricted. Hell's bells, access restricted zones didn't pop up in EQ until Kunark, and only one of those was even a pain in the ass to quest. What I was really thinking of was things like the VT key quest, which was such a pointless pain in the ass waste of time that I nearly quit the game after I finished it. I've participated in about a dozen Aten Ha Ra kills and still haven't spent as much time actually inside VT as I did questing to gain access in the first place. Then there's PoP, and GoD.

As for "conflicts of interest", I don't see it. Sony is not selling anything.

Wait.
[/quote]

[Riggen]

Friggin board automatically adding tags.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

See Riggen - that's the sort of people I mean by the anti-EQ2 freaks.



Dd

Hope you didn't mean me.. I played EQ2 and loved it until about my 20's when it just got stagnant and boring. If I were still playing I'd be 50, and possibly having some fun.

[Riggen]

Took a while to dredge it up, but this is what I fear: