Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Syds Sinclair
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 01:53:00 -
[31]
..I didn't read the whole topic, so some of this might have been repeated. But I don't care so here goes.
If someone decides the risk:reward is worth it to willingly move plex(s) around regions then more power to him. If that plex gets destroyed in a suicide gank or as the result of a war target kill, then the person transporting said plex has just seen the risk part fulfilled.
As for CCP just wanting plex's to be destroyed (I.E. money) to be destroyed, no s**t. Good job CCP. I'll take all the people who can't bother to make their own isk and choose to buy AND THEN transport plexe's I can get. The money the produce for CCP will no doubt help CCP's bottom line, and in turn, improve the players game experience.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 02:35:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Syds Sinclair ..I didn't read the whole topic, so some of this might have been repeated. But I don't care so here goes.
I have to tell you that I absolutely adored your honesty here. Nothing makes me light up inside like someone with your point of view. Of course I don't know anything more about your point of view as I didn't care to read it. After all, in two short sentences you've confirmed you absolutely can not provide anything worth reading. So thank you for self obsoleting yourself so promptly.
Wealth, howsoever got, in Eve makes Lords of morons and gentlemen of thieves; Aptitude and intellect are needless here; 'Tis impudence and money that grants fame. |
Tekota
legion industries ltd Veni Vidi Vici Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 03:41:00 -
[33]
I can kinda see the concern in this one. From a players perspective, no problems, it's not really any different to stupidly or naively losing 300m isk in any other manner. From a market price perspective - honestly don't know, some plex destruction might raise prices, better arbitrage between regions may drop prices.
However, destruction of plex means that CCP really does get paid twice for some month's subscriptions. Destruction of any other item is either good or bad for the ingame economy; plex is the *only* item in game for which destruction has a direct (albeit delayed) and positive effect on the real life financials of CCP.
How many plex will get destroyed each month? It'll be a relatively small figure I reckon, but take a guess. Take that figure and multiply it by the income received by CCP for a month's subs (ie. minus retail's cut etc); then factor that total into the cost to keep someone employed in Iceland for a month, or the cost of a rack in London, or the monthly CCP booze budget.
I'll grant them, it's a staggeringly clever way of eeking a bit more money out of the playerbase in a way that nobody (or nearly nobody) actually feels the pinch to their real life wallet. Every plex destroyed has a direct positive effect on CCP financials, and with the reasoning for the change in the blog being slightly wooly the conspiracy theorists amongst us have to wonder how much this factored into the reasoning behind the change.
|
Nemi Lethal
Gallente DarkStar Armada One Stop Research
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 06:28:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Aerilis IMO CCP simply did it to make more money, every plex destroyed in space is a free $15 for them.
That's pretty much how I sum it up as well.
|
Mme Pinkerton
United Engineering Services
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 06:40:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Like I've always said, in game is one thing as it is the sandbox. Out of game? Someone a bit naive loses 1+ plexes and CCP's disingenuously innocent response of, "Awwwww, tough luck there mate", is just that - some middle manager's way of saying, "Hey, let us also unethically benefit from people's stupidity." Obscured from sight is the simple fact that a plex is a contract, an oath, between the holder and CCP.
CCP just doesn't get it. If you run a game that is based upon deceit and venality - YOU HAVE TO BE AS FREE FROM SUCH AS POSSIBLE.
But again, explaining ethics to people who don't have it is generally a freaking waste of time. No matter how disappointed I may be for them, they'll never hesitate to dive lower and lower.
/signed
I don't think that's the type of company I want to do business with.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 06:53:00 -
[36]
All CCP would need to do in my opinion is make the PLEX indestructible. That's it..
They where given $15 for 30 days of game play, if some fool chooses to shuttle one somewhere and he gets ganked, CCP still need to honor that $15 somewhere. Be it the hands of the fool who managed to escape the gank, or the pirate that ganks him.
Amarr for Life |
Illmuri
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:58:00 -
[37]
Which is kind of the point they are (supposedly) trying to get away from. They dont want items being valued more because they are treated with special consideration.
Maybe they are hoping over time people think of them just like any market item and prices go down, which means people would have to buy more PLEX to get the same isk.
|
Shaedyn
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:11:00 -
[38]
Let's also make Corpus X-type large armor repairers unable to leave a station. They cost 1bn Isk and can simply be destroyed if in your cargo! I can buy 3 plex with that, so if my Corpus X-type large armor repairer is destroyed, I lose 3 months of subscription! :O
Seriously tho, why do you all assume everyone's going to be moving their stuff now? I bet within 1 year of this happening, no plexes will be destroyed by people who were going to redeem them instead of trade them off at a higher price.
|
Syds Sinclair
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 21:12:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: Syds Sinclair ..I didn't read the whole topic, so some of this might have been repeated. But I don't care so here goes.
I have to tell you that I absolutely adored your honesty here. Nothing makes me light up inside like someone with your point of view. Of course I don't know anything more about your point of view as I didn't care to read it. After all, in two short sentences you've confirmed you absolutely can not provide anything worth reading. So thank you for self obsoleting yourself so promptly.
..How interesting. My post disagrees with your post, so you flame me. Couple that with our disagreement on a different subject. You are like an onion, the more layers you peel, the deeper you get. Pathetic.
And I think we all know you in fact did read my post in its entirety. Maybe it's the carebear inside of you that want's people to have no risk:reward.
|
Durin Sarga
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 19:05:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Durin Sarga on 12/07/2010 19:08:18 So I noticed this discussion and felt like chiming in. Yes, Shar, I read the whole thing. : )
A PLEX = $15 = 300M ISK in game.
Item A = 600M ISK in game.
For those of us in industry, Item A was produced. For those of us who are mission runners or complex runners, Item A was a loot drop. These items were created using in-game mechanics and randomness. If destroyed, they only represent a loss of in-game stuff.
A PLEX on the other hand represents something entirely different. I can't make a PLEX from Trit. I can't get it in a loot drop from some unholy Null-Sec BS spawn. And every PLEX I buy on market with ISK did NOT come from some PLEX fairy in the sky. It came from another player (who either paid for the subscription time, or no longer needs their PLEX that they bought previously). As a result, when that PLEX is destroyed, it automatically has a much different impact than when Item A was destroyed.
Item A could not be redeemed for 30-day's playing time. The ISK which Item A represented couldn't be redeemed for 30 day's playing time. Only PLEX counts. And since PLEX can NOT be created in-game, only destroyed (as of this 'patch') we are left with the fact that PLEX Destroyed > PLEX 'Created' = free money for CCP. Every destroyed PLEX will represent an involuntary $15 donation to CCP.
For the record, I'm not opposed to them being mobile. I am opposed to them being destructible. Because whether we like it or not, they are different by the very nature of what they signify. No other item in EVE is redeemable for game time, therefore PLEX is NOT, by definition 'just another trade item'. It IS in fact a 'special' item and SHOULD be given 'special' attention.
also... WTB: PLEX BPO, evemail in game if you got one. lol.
|
|
Tiberizzle
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 19:36:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Syds Sinclair
Originally by: Shar Tegral trollface
..How interesting. My post disagrees with your post, so you flame me.
Shar is the cancer killing MD
Don't feed the troll basically.
|
Mini Tee
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 19:47:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Durin Sarga
Item A could not be redeemed for 30-day's playing time. The ISK which Item A represented couldn't be redeemed for 30 day's playing time.
But you can sell the item and buy a PLEX with it
|
Syds Sinclair
|
Posted - 2010.07.12 21:17:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Tiberizzle
Originally by: Syds Sinclair
Originally by: Shar Tegral trollface
..How interesting. My post disagrees with your post, so you flame me.
Shar is the cancer killing MD
Don't feed the troll basically.
..I personally think that Shar is 50% great for MD and 50% village idiot with a college degree.
And so the post doesn't get deleted by mods: If someone takes the risk to undock with a PLEX to make an isk profit, they should be aware of all of the potential outcomes. If they don't at first, I'm sure they will after a few less then positive encounters with the space pirates.
This is the exact same thread that has popped up in the GD and New Player forum for years. This is not WOW, you wont get a replacement spaceship if some "low life" blows you up, you can loose all your isk in 30 mins of trading. Go play Hello Kitty Online if you can't accept the the penalty/reward of your actions. Transport PLEXs at your own risk.
And above all else, internet spaceship idiots will flame you for disagreeing with them.
|
Diomedes Calypso
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 18:43:00 -
[44]
I have a different read on this.
My impression is that the change was to more firmly make plexes a "game asset" .
So we implemented a few restrictions on this one item that made it behave differently from all the other items in-game.
Therefore we'll be removing all the special casing surrounding the PLEX items and have them function and behave as any other regular item.
My feeling is that perhaps their legal department thinks ( there is a risk that plexes could be construed as an out of game asset by courts somewhere or another (despite the eula) and that the game's special treatment of the Plex item reinforces the point that it is quite different from other game items.
An out of game item can be bought and sold..at least it is more in the jurisdiction of real world laws. By having as many of the same rules apply as possible to plexes as other in game items they streghthen their stance that they are indeed in game items where the EULA applies.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 19:49:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Diomedes Calypso I have a different read on this.
My impression is that the change was to more firmly make plexes a "game asset" .
So we implemented a few restrictions on this one item that made it behave differently from all the other items in-game.
Therefore we'll be removing all the special casing surrounding the PLEX items and have them function and behave as any other regular item.
My feeling is that perhaps their legal department thinks ( there is a risk that plexes could be construed as an out of game asset by courts somewhere or another (despite the eula) and that the game's special treatment of the Plex item reinforces the point that it is quite different from other game items.
An out of game item can be bought and sold..at least it is more in the jurisdiction of real world laws. By having as many of the same rules apply as possible to plexes as other in game items they streghthen their stance that they are indeed in game items where the EULA applies.
This is what I've been saying for days. The fact that they announced it suddenly, out of any patch or such, and implemented it so quickly, only underscores it. I suspect the reason they want to more clearly define Plex as an in game asset may be tax driven, but it may be as simple as just wanting to more clearly show that if you get scammed a plex or such its part of gameplay (in game asset), and not theft (out of game asset).
|
Diomedes Calypso
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 20:25:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Diomedes Calypso on 13/07/2010 20:32:58 @Thras
I'm less concerned about the tax issue, well at least in the states, as I'm pretty confident that barter tax rules wouldn't apply. I'd think that valuable game assets that could be sold for real money would really only become "owned" after a transfer is made that converted them to real $ . Similar to appreciation of an asset like a home which isn't taxed until sold. I do think that they are entitled to set terms of a prepaid "token" like a plex just as a store could set expirations on gift certificates or discount coupons. But, I suppose the tax treatment of Airlines frequent flyer programs could be a tax precedent. There was some rough compromise but flight points earned by employees from buisness payed travel are taxable compensation in some complicated ways.
International banking laws however are another matter. For reasons of national sovereignity and global security tranfers of cash between nations is highly regulated. There is also a domestic element to this. Like it or not, governments want the ability to track transferes of moeny between people. External funding of terrorist/revolutionary causes is one aspect. The ability to launder money in for other criminal activities is another.
Its hard to imagine the dollar amounts scaling subsatially enough to really be an issue... but Titan's cost $4000 US dollars and a person in one country giving 10 Titans to a person in another country, who could in turn sell them for real $ and fund living expenses for a few potential terrorists for a year is the sort of thing governments have an interest in stamping out. CCP probably has a strong case with the Titans to confiscate those that looked like they were sold to the RMT but as we've said the plexes were probably too close to real assets.
Even with the changes there is a pretty good argument that prepaid game time is a real world asset especaially if players are able to transfer the play time between each other.
My thought would be that their safest choice would be to disallow transfer of the plexes between players and instead sell isk directly to players and sell game time directly to other players for isk if they want to drain isk from players that might be tempting to use for RMT and toss a bone to those that feel like real money got people ahead by giving them a counter of the advantages of having "free" mutiple accounts they earned through game play.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |