Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Wai Lana Yutani
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.28 04:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
This question is concerning market product / service avalability and generic CCP brands.
Is there a way to offset anticipated market volume by creating a universal CCP generic brand for all products? |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
252
|
Posted - 2012.12.28 06:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
you mean having a npc entity buy/sell goods near a new patch/expansion to keep a stable price on something?
if so, yes? there is always that ability, but why would they want to? one of the stated goals that CCP has, is a player driven economy. and as such they are moving more and more things entirely into the players hands. Creating another NPC entity that sells things is counter to this goal.
Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
1352
|
Posted - 2012.12.28 08:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Wai Lana Yutani wrote:This question is concerning market product / service avalability and generic CCP brands.
Is there a way to offset anticipated market volume by creating a universal CCP generic brand for all products? Huh?
What is a "CCP Brand"? |
Wai Lana Yutani
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.28 10:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Player driven (PDE) and generic brand economies (GBE) might be more plausible as a single philosophy if the PDE fell below a particular level. The GBE marketplace generally would become an auxillary market that deals strickly in discounted indexes of both PDE and GBE bid activity. In essence, the corporations would supplement the GBE while CCP tax incentives would be offered to corporations for participating.
CCP is an impartial entity. CSM and ISD would be procured to do the actual manufacturing and official business. Both of these entities would provisioned to participate in market campaigns but with the condition of generic brand exclusivity; they would not be allowed to compete against PDE corporations. Product indexes and ISK would still fluctuate, but not be totally depleted for more than 48 hours without a direct matriulation order from CCP. Regional and ethinic productivity would be credited based upon GBE volume and other incentives.
Either way, the concept is viable under regulated conditions and the tax incentives for alliance members would defray any question of ethics. Price stabilization is not the argument, stimulating market growth is. |
Tessa Odain
Li3's Electric Cucumber Li3 Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.12.28 12:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
I think it MIGHT work only if the supplier could brand their own product.
Maybe have a way to design the skin that the product would look like.
The CCP brand would be the same boring old skins we have and the player made products would be completely custom. From paint job to inscriptions.
That would be sweet... but, damn near impossible to pull off I think.... Too many variables to consider. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
1356
|
Posted - 2012.12.28 13:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Wai Lana Yutani wrote:Player driven (PDE) and generic brand economies (GBE) might be more plausible as a single philosophy if the PDE fell below a particular level. The GBE marketplace generally would become an auxillary market that deals strickly in discounted indexes of both PDE and GBE bid activity. In essence, the corporations would supplement the GBE while CCP tax incentives would be offered to corporations for participating.
CCP is an impartial entity. CSM and ISD would be procured to do the actual manufacturing and official business. Both of these entities would provisioned to participate in market campaigns but with the condition of generic brand exclusivity; they would not be allowed to compete against PDE corporations. Product indexes and ISK would still fluctuate, but not be totally depleted for more than 48 hours without a direct matriulation order from CCP. Regional and ethinic productivity would be credited based upon GBE volume and other incentives.
Either way, the concept is viable under regulated conditions and the tax incentives for alliance members would defray any question of ethics. Price stabilization is not the argument, stimulating market growth is. You might find the Market Discussions forum is more appropriate for such a thread. |
Oska Rus
Solar Storm Intrepid Crossing
4
|
Posted - 2012.12.28 14:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Definite no for such outside regulation. EVE is free market and works pretty much fine. Any outside regulatory force would screw things up. See what happened when CCP tried to influence markets by allowing FW exploits...... |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
254
|
Posted - 2012.12.28 18:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
Having not taken any econ classes for more then a year, can you use smaller words?
Would not having any ISD or CCP brand be pde competition? Any non player seeded markets are opportunity for players too seed, would not then the ISD or CCP brand goods be competition for anyone that wanted to open these markets? Or as it seems to apply to established markets, you want a npc entity to buy and sell goods to create a stable module/item pricing?
I am still not sure what exactly this influences. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
|
CCP Falcon
1984
|
Posted - 2012.12.28 21:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Moved to Market Discussions Forum. CCP Falcon -á || -á EVE Community Team -á || -á EVE Illuminati -á || -á-á@CCP_Falcon -á || -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents
-- Disciple Of The Delicious Tea -- |
|
Fractal Muse
Dead's Prostitutes Test Friends Please Ignore
150
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 18:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
Wai Lana Yutani wrote: Either way, the concept is viable under regulated conditions and the tax incentives for alliance members would defray any question of ethics. Price stabilization is not the argument, stimulating market growth is.
Either way you are not clear in what you are attempting to discuss.
Generic branding isn't an economic term as such it stems from marketing - a generic brand of anything does not have the "value add" created by an established brand. A brand being, loosely, the "mindshare" that a company has for a product in a market.
For example, Coke is a brand. Pepsi is another brand. Cola, is generic. This becomes even more clear for generic drugs versus branded drugs. Typically, generic drugs are much cheaper than branded drugs since they are, usually, a reverse engineered duplicate of the original.
Given that you are mixing up terminology and are trying to use big words (using them incorrectly I might add) and in the process aren't saying anything I am failing to follow what you are trying to do here.
As such, please provide some clarification on what it is you are trying to say. |
|
flakeys
Arkham Innovations Paper Tiger Coalition
709
|
Posted - 2012.12.29 19:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
I wanted to reply to the question , but i just keep staring into those lovely eyes.
So let me ask you ..... how YOU doing ?
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |