| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Elise DarkStar
   |
Posted - 2011.06.15 21:45:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Elise DarkStar on 15/06/2011 21:47:45
Good to see Liberty spouting his usual clueless horse****.
Adding restrictions (fees) makes things more efficient? Is the Eve API a limited resource that needs to be parceled out to the most efficient users?
The critics are suggesting that CCP will lose more in value-added from these 3rd party services than they will gain in fees. That is the discussion. The idea that an arbitrary operating cost will somehow improve the quality and efficiency of the 3rd party services market is farcical, and is actually completely contrary to the very ideology from which you are spouting with such divinely-inspired, clueless zeal.
|
Elise DarkStar
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 22:08:00 -
[2]
I perfectly represented your point, you have now reinforced it by proving how absolutely ****ing clueless you remain.
How does an arbitrary fee from the holder of an unlimited resource to producers represent the will of the consumer? The potential returns from product development or innovation are exactly the same; no wait, they are actually lower. The fee creates a barrier to innovation.
The only potential argument for efficiency is in the producer/resource-holder relationship. By sourcing an income from people who are using what is so for an externality, they may potentially have the proper incentive to turn that externality into a product, which means the 3rd party producers will have a superior input to work with. I don't think this will be the case, knowing CCP, but at least this is an theoretically consistent argument for efficiency through licensing.
|
Elise DarkStar
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 22:45:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Liberty Eternal
I was not answering that question with my posts. I suggest you learn to read.
No, rather it is the actual economic issue you are attempting to deal with, and failing miserably, properly framed by me, someone who actually has a clue wtf they are talking about.
You, on the other hand, are spewing ideological talking points to favor a theoretically inconsistent point, something which you could have just as easily done for the other side had you as cluelessly decided that it instead was the better representation of your farcically childish interpretation of free-market liberal ideology.
|
Elise DarkStar
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 22:56:00 -
[4]
Being mean =/= adhom.
But keep running though, it's funny.
|
Elise DarkStar
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 00:22:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Vasaczk
$99 for unlimited upside seems fair to me. It's your own fault if you can't realise said upside.
TBH I'm amazed they haven't included some royalties catch.
Don't misinterpret my zeal for exposing terrible economic theory for an opinion on the real issue; I honestly don't give a ****.
|
Elise DarkStar
|
Posted - 2011.06.16 02:37:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Vasaczk
There was terrible economic theory involved? I thought it was just casual assertion? Only a game dude.
I mean I could just as easily say: sure your intellectual ivory tower might be nice, pity I cant admire it because you have the plain english skills of a first year physics student.
lol wut?
I think you've failed to follow the flow of the conversation.
|
| |
|