Real Money Auction House RMAH for poe

The thing is, the RMAH is a statistical enabler. Because the access is now a trusted party and fully integrated, the percentage of users will go up. Theoretically demand will go up, and farming activities will go up.

That is the ONLY thing the RMAH does.

Conversely, the lack of a RMAH is a statistical disabler... it will reduce the amount of people using a RM trade system, because it's not integrated and there is a trust issue. Theoretically, demand will be lower, and farming activities will be lower.

For the company, it's all about the money gained... it does nothing else for the company. They absolutely do not care if it's safer or whatever... that is simply lip-service to foster usage.

No, just NO!. I don't want to see a RMAH here, I like that no one can pay to buy power thank you very much.

i honestly don't have a problem with a RMAH sure its buying power but so is using the in game currency. Its still taking a short cut. what does it matter what currency you use? the only real difference is time investment. Its not like PoE has a store front with all the uber gear for on sale in unlimited quantities. These are items found by players and introduced to the economy by players the supply will be limited and completely controlled by the players. i think that's why it doesn't bother me if it was just a storefront ran by GGG i would be against it.

I think rmah is a good idea to bring money in for GGG , hence I support it since they only brought in 200k anyway . Even worse I see people actually complaining about spending $10 for a beta key - you know these plebs will never even spend a dime and just eat resources. Sigh this is also why I avoid most free to play games as it tends to attract the plebs, buy anyway -

I support any possible way for GGG to get more money and continue making a great game.

Furthermore, I do not understand why anyone cares if 'real money', ie FIAT paper influences anything in game. We are talking about USD/EURO in most cases here. These are fiat currencies printed to infinity and beyond, and only have any value because the poor actually accept them for work (lol yes seriously the plebs actually think someones piece of paper has value all the while the rich/banks just print it whenever they need more work and the plebs never learn, but i digress, I see no difference from a orb of seashell to a monopoly money currency which isn't even worth the paper its printed on. So those that argue 'pay to win' ' unfair' ask yourselves... what is different from a virtual seashell to a dollar bill? sadly nothing except my next gallon of gas most likely costing less orb of seashells than paper fiats.

"

zeto wrote:

I'm going to assume that you agree that game rules are arbitrary, from the physics in the game, to what is considered within the rules and outside of the rules...I'm also going to assume that you believe it's possible for a developer or perhaps a community to set up a set of rules that dictate what is considered 'in game' and what is considered 'not game' as the definition of 'the game' as intended play... if not then the rest that follows is pretty moot.

What context of game rules would be sufficient for you to believe that money would constitute a breach of rules? Do they have to be written down? Do they have to be entirely hard coded somehow? If it's not possible to code a rule, and cannot, for various reasons (perhaps legal) be specifically written into the EULA, can it still be considered a breach ever?

You did give an example, but I'm curious what it would take, that you feel would be a reasonable implementation that would clearly indicate that real money was considered a form of cheating within the context of a game... any game.

I'm also curious what type of system would be acceptable to you that would allow you to bring in friends, but where money was considered cheating.

Are game rules arbitrary? Yes, and no. Game rules exist for a reason, definitely. What you can do (and how you can do it) and what you can't do (and why not) are critical to what a game "is". There's a reason you roll dice in Backgammon instead of, say, having 5 pips every turn.

There are two ways to make something against the rules: Explictly state what you can do, preventing other options ("On your turn, you may draw 2 cards, play a card and draw a card, or play 2 cards.". Well, clearly you can't draw 2 cards and play 2 cards. Or discard your hand.) or explicitly state what you can not do. (In PoE, we can not craft an M1 Abrams tank to ride around in, blasting monsters.)

One rule you never want to make in a game is one that you can't tell whether was broken.

Yeah, if it was in the ToS or EULA or something I would agree that it was cheating. As long as they actually did something about it - many companies put many things in those documents as lip service. Of course, that's a fairly academic point, because I would still say it was arbitrary. "Because the game maker says we roll dice (as opposed to playing rock/paper/scissors) to determine who goes first" is arbitrary, I suppose, but there's "arbitrary, because it has to be done one way or another" and "arbitrarily drawing a line that helps THESE players (in our example, players with lots of connections.) and hurts THOSE players (players with money.)". Everyone has the same change rolling dice. Everyone does not have the same chance of getting good items in an ARPG, and therefore there is no reason to exacerbate those gaps - if player A has time, Player B has buddies, and Player C has money, saying Player C isn't allowed to leverage his "advantage" (in quotes because it's really only making an even playing field.) would be like playing backgammon with a rule that people with red hair don't get quadruple movement on doubles.

As for acceptable to have friends but not money, I have an easy answer: Remove trading from the game, and make loot hidden from other players. My items are mine, yours are yours, no trade window, no dropping it for you to pick up, no nothing. Would it have (huge) negatives? Absolutely. Do you care about fairness, or do you care about freedom? Pick one, don't try to do one, except when this, unless that, but maybe if the moon is in the right phase... (What constitutes buying? I mean, what if I trade my sandwich to my coworker for that cool item? Or pick up a round of drinks at the bar? Or if the trade was arranged on an outside website? What about via instant messenger, or email? Let's make it simple. If you give me an item, I can use it, why you gave it to me is between me and you - it will save GGG a lot of time trying to figure out if I'm feeding that other account crap because it's my wife's account, or because I'm getting paid.)

Interesting reasons.

Anyway, my stance is summed up as this:

Big Daddy John works at a good job, he gets paid a boat load...

Middle Guy Tony works a regular job, makes ends meet...

Tiny Kid Suzie cannot have a job and spends her leisure time playing...

Item Z is awesome, and everyone wants it. Middle Guy Tony simply has no chance. He cannot afford it, and he cannot devote the time to get items to trade. Tiny Kid Suzie however has all the time in the world, as is very common, and grinds hardcore for 30 hours to get enough resources to offer. Big Daddy John works his normal job, and comes back home to see Suzie offering great loot for Item Z. Big Daddy John offers $200 instead that took him 2-4 hours to obtain... Big Daddy John gets Item Z and a bunch of other great items that require 30 hours of play to obtain... he spent a total of 5 hours, and is now able to obliterate others who have played for 10x longer than him, including poor Suzie.

I do not consider that within the spirit of this type of game, and I feel that this is the case regardless of if it's commonplace or not.

It's simply wrong and Tiny Kid Suzie deserves those items... not Big Daddy John.

"

stkmro wrote:

skyrocket down

Must be a North Korean rocket.

It's already been said, but I'll reiterate; GGG has said they will not implement a pay2win system.

Perhaps this has been mentioned earlier ... but my simple search did not reveal it and I haven't read the entire thread.

One reason GGG probably would not want a RMAH is that it will take a substantial amount of resources to support it; including perhaps international legal resources. Some (South Korea?! I think) at one point (and maybe still) did not want Blizzard's RMAH because it was potentially too close to online gambling. At a certain point this is no longer going to be an isolated case and its going to become a significant issue. Its not just a simple set it up and expect money to start flowing in.

This is a very bad idea and you should feel bad.

The lack of official P2W is one of the main reasons why I'm interested in this game over D3. If they ever implement something like a RMAH, then I'm out of here. Good thing they've promised repeatedly that they won't allow players to buy power, so it looks very unlikely. :)

"

zeto wrote:

Interesting reasons.

Anyway, my stance is summed up as this:

Big Daddy John works at a good job, he gets paid a boat load...

Middle Guy Tony works a regular job, makes ends meet...

Tiny Kid Suzie cannot have a job and spends her leisure time playing...

Item Z is awesome, and everyone wants it. Middle Guy Tony simply has no chance. He cannot afford it, and he cannot devote the time to get items to trade. Tiny Kid Suzie however has all the time in the world, as is very common, and grinds hardcore for 30 hours to get enough resources to offer. Big Daddy John works his normal job, and comes back home to see Suzie offering great loot for Item Z. Big Daddy John offers $200 instead that took him 2-4 hours to obtain... Big Daddy John gets Item Z and a bunch of other great items that require 30 hours of play to obtain... he spent a total of 5 hours, and is now able to obliterate others who have played for 10x longer than him, including poor Suzie.

I do not consider that within the spirit of this type of game, and I feel that this is the case regardless of if it's commonplace or not.

It's simply wrong and Tiny Kid Suzie deserves those items... not Big Daddy John.

I think what you are forgetting is that the person playing the game is actually 'playing' the game.
He's having fun, potentially even partying up with friends having a great time.
The guy with the money is working his potentially stressful and boring job, albeit for less time.
And what if big daddy john has to work almost every day for a very long time, and has very little time to actually play the game? Does that mean he is not entitled to having good items? Does he need to play the game for 5 years to finally get endgame gear? I don't think so.

And the thing is: You say tiny suzan deserves the item.
Well, if she truly 'deserves' it through in-game standards then she could have gotten some cash on the RMAH through in-game means and bought the item that way.
It's really not hard to buy an item off the AH, then sell it for a reasonable price on the RMAH, and voila you have money to spend on the RMAH.