We can be confident that OOO isn't going to let a tiny handful of greedy players dictate their policy on this issue.

They shouldn't be sold for 75kce in the first place. Granted, it's what the market will bear, but I think the majority of the posters in this thread (me definitely included) are a little insulted that Chris got all up in knots over an assumed situation about non-gameplay related profiteering.

okay, not "a little insulted". very very insulted. AH and CE profiteers bug me, and they're the ones who shout down OOO auctions due to so-called unfairness, not to mention pulling sacred cow arguments. "It would ruin the game if OOO put in Groundbreaker and 1st gens because people won't know who the old players are".

Lies.

See, here's the problem in this thread, and by and large the game. Right now, the "haves" are whining about the "have-nots" having possible access to their cash cows. This is so much a microcosm of what's happening in every country in the world. When the whining doesn't work, they start threatening and pouting, and trying to throw their weight around. I don't care about the specifics of their point, or even the validity of it in a technobabble-jargon economical standpoint; all I know is that, much like in real life, the Proles are getting the end of the stick that was someplace very unpleasant.

Now, the nice thing is that, unlike real life, OOO has carte blanche ability to immediately cull out the issues decisively, unlike 18th century France, or 5th century Rome, or 21st century America (possibly O.o). Nobody's gonna try and behead Chris, or by extension me because I roll in a Chapeau and Ice Queen armor. The thing is that there's just...no point to revolt.

The things that Chris et al market in is luxury for the in-game bourgeoisie so they can look spiffy and kill people in LD very fast with their pokey sticks. Their goings-on really doesn't contribute to t1-t2-early t3 life, or to people grinding their 1st or 2nd 5*s. What is hateful about the whole process is that somehow they think it does to the point of posting threads like this, lashing out at what is in essence Gods of this realm. It's hubris in the extreme, and quite frankly, very sad.

I'm not mad at the idea of not being able to access 1st edition Chapeaus. I'm mad at a PLAYER assuming that they have the sort of clout as to push around Devs.

Personally? I can't be hired at OOO. I would be a cruel, Old-World god, and I would come down like a bolt of lightning on behavior like this.

Neodasus, you write:

"What Chris is saying is that by removing limited-edition items from the Auction House, just the sheer existence of the item generates enough CE to keep the conversion at a fair rate and will continue to make OOO money so long as it remains in circulation (unbound). This is a valid suggestion, especially for the F2Ps that basically survive off the fecal matter of the oligarchy."

This is certainly true. So long as the hat both remains in circulation and unbound, it generates profit for OOO. But to what extent does this happen? who buys a hat from another player and fails to equip it? Even if it happens occasionally, it can't possibly be the norm.

The hats don't stay unbound an in circulation. That's not a reasonable expectation. Rather, one should expect each hat to not circulate--to, instead, sit in the possession of a single player until it is sold and bound.

Again, the sale of a hat has the potential to generate profit for OOO--there's no guarantee, but the potential exists. However, you should not expect a hat to float around being sold multiple times. Indeed, since the expectation should be that each hat will be sold approximately once, it remains the case that OOO would be better served by introducing new hats into the market.

You've confused yourself and the issue by making an overly complicated (though amusing) analogy to an economic system that is not analogous.

The matter is quite simple. I've spelled it out a couple of times, now, and my explanation remains sound. Chris's suggestion is not conducive to OOO profit. His logic and premises are flawed, as is his conclusion. Your logic and premises are also flawed, though in a different way.

I have nothing against Chris, but he's wrong on this one. There is no reason at all to expect that a promise, by OOO, to refrain from ever introducing more Rose Regalia items (in the old colors, of course) into the game would increase OOO's profits. Indeed, there is every reason to expect that actually continuing to introduce Rose Regalia items (in the old colors) would increase OOO's profits.

ITT: trickle-down is real and people get mad

how does it feel to bite the hand that feeds you

I was playing when the first Rose Regalia event happened. I have a White Rose set. I wear it routinely.

I would like it if it remained a somewhat rare thing, but there's really no fear of that condition changing. They'd have to auction off hundreds of them (maybe thousands) before I'd actually notice any decrease in their rarity--that is, before the personal satisfaction I get from owning one would be affected at all.

And what about newer players getting them? First off, I don't really care whether newer players get them. Secondly, newer players will be getting them anyway. Who do you think is buying them? People who did't get them in the original event, obviously. Even if I did feel like demanding that only players who were around when the event happened be allowed to own and wear the first-gen Rose Regalia items (and what sort of jerk would I be if I did) speculators like you and Chris would be actively undermining that goal by selling your stashed Rose Regalia items to newer players! Heck, I bought extra Rose Regalia items and sold them to players who didn't get them in the original event. Obviously, I don't care whether newer players get ahold of them.

I can see an argument from this perspective for the GB sets, but then, that's a moot point--no-one got extra, saleable GB sets and GB sets have never been placed on the AH. They are, in this discussion, nothing more than a smoke-screen: entirely beside the point.

When it comes to 1st (or 2nd) gen Rose Regalia items, your position is entirely invalid. It is nothing short of blatantly hypocritical to hold the Rose items as being something special that only those players who were around when the event happened should be allowed to wear while stockpiling Rose items from those events for future sale.

I am accusing the people who are writing the hate that Chris is saying this for his own being which is very untrue.

But I Imagine it's like this.

I agree completely, and it doesn't bother me at all that you will make a profit on your investments.

I made two points: first that maximizing your return-on-investment won't maximize OOO's profits and second that maintaining the rarity and prestige of these items is not a legitimate concern at the rate at which they've so-far seen auction.

The only sound complaint one can make about the auctioning of first-gen rose items is that it reduces their value to those who invested in them.

But, fairly obviously, that's not something that anyone but those players really cares about. Maximizing the return-on-investment from old Rose Regalia doesn't make the game better for any beyond a very small cadre of players, and that's not a good reason to ask for a policy shift on OOO's part.

So, your last post fails to address any pertinent issue.

@Loest

He is actually maximizing OOO's profits by maximizing the return on his investment dude. The CE is being purchased in order to afford the item in the first place. The CE will eventually be converted into CR given that they reached a crafting-plateau, lowering the price of CE. Without merchants like that, CE would have little use to advanced players.

edit: and yeah, I made that point too, which is why I made that post to begin with

if you're not in the oligarchy or a f2p you really shouldn't care what players do with expensive cosmetic items

the underlying problem here is that f2ps could possibly no longer afford energy, will not become paid accounts and so forth

I think it's dangerous to appeal to a small group of players, because eventually the players that hold these items and CR eventually quit without putting them back into circulation. It's a dangerous thing really, and if OOO expects any longevity out of SK they need to put items on the market as a countermeasure...so F2Ps can afford to play a little more and will eventually become paid accounts

I really enjoy seeing both sides of this debate. Valid point Snarkey, but due to the nature of bound cosmetic items...after a set period of time they will have to reintroduce them, seeing as how the players that used them may have become inactive.

edit: what this thread needs is some dev/GM attention, I hope to keep this thread alive long enough to get some...

"after a set period of time they will have to reintroduce them, seeing as how the players that used them may have become inactive."

If you've Played AQWorlds before, once they've made something Rare, it Stays Rare. But if OOO's Generous enough to do Re-Releases, that would be Fantastic.

...

Wait...

I Hate Regalia Items! D:<

EDIT: Also, if you've Played LittleBigPlanet, Rare BETA Stuff, like the Gas Mask & Vest are ONLY Given to those Who Participated/Found Bugs in the BETA. If they Re-Release Groundbreakers, it would be Natural to see someone Displeased.

From Chris's posts, he says OOO makes profit when the ce is used. Which is true, as it creates a net ce gain of negative. However, the ce used in buying cosmetics at a inflating rate won't all be used up.

@Snarkey
You bellyache about your investment tanking. Why not get rid of it if it's toxic? Hm? No, you'd rather try to get OOO to fix it for you. Well guess what? Some investments tank, just like in the real world, and there is no reason for OOO to bail you out or guarantee your asset. And just like the real world, if you've put all your eggs in one basket, you're an idiot. I suspect that you wouldn't lose much, since you've probably spread your money everywhere and are generally not an idiot.
________________________

It doesn't help that people who invest in what are utterly useless items are fools. Those items have their value due to one tentative thing; rarity. Vanity. Far better to keep rooted in something that has actual use in or benefit to the game. Hell, I suspect that it's what all the merchants truly make their money off of; these gear trades. Off something with a rather concrete value rather than stuff that's heavily speculated at best. Else you play a dangerous game, and you shouldn't be surprised if you get burned.

One interesting thing to keep in mind is if you bought the 1st gen rose pack and got the hat out of that, there is NO WAY that you have lost any money in your investment, since you literally got the hat for nothing (it was a bonus from buying ce from OOO at the time). It's all profit. You've only lost potential that doesn't exist anymore and that may or may not come back.

I'm sick of people trying to bring "party hat" bull to this game. At least OOO is making some sort of effort to prevent that on some level. This thread, at its very heart, is about trying to introduce more of those items into the game. Limited edition items that have no way to enter the game, but are still tradeable. All this talk of Rose sets is merely a tangent.

Oh, wait, I was gonna add quotes to support the previous paragraph (that is, show where he said he wanted new, tradeable, guaranteed limited edition items added to the game), but it seems Chris decided to blank his first post. How childish. He can't deal with the noise, so he takes his ball and goes home. Guess I'll just post this now and let the thread die.

I missed it. Damn.

"Reread the initial posting, and pretend that someone else wrote it."
I personaly reread everyting in stephen colberts voice. You are now doomed to do the same.

Did anyone happen to save Chris' first post? I haven't had time to read this thread but am extremely curious now as to what Chris actually posted in his first post.

Aw. I completely forgot about this thread's existence up until about 10 minutes ago, but now I'm saddened that no one replied to my post on the first page.

And now I'm too lazy to read the rest of the thread without using Ctrl+F for "Rete" so I'm gonna assume mostly everyone moved on by now anyway.

Neodasus, I learned my lessons on beanie babies. That's why I'm so anti-retail.

:::slides the door to his temperature controlled room with 748 pairs of tiny colorful eyes staring at his exit:::

When somebody buys 20k energy, three rings doesn't ACTUALLY make $50 until all of that energy is burned somehow in-game. This is one of the many factors in my first post I have chosen not to expand on.

And I think this is a simple counter argument to the "complex" economical theory that Chris brought up. The deciding factor, is still in the buyer's hands. OOO doesn't make money until the buyers decide to use up that energy for said purpose (buy overpriced accessories / costumes from other users). If buyers do not see the values in these accessories / costumes, while guys like OP continue to jack up prices without ceiling. The result is a market bubble, much like the US Housing Bubble in 2008. Why? Because said people are effectively asking for a cheap Call option by telling OOO to not re-issue these items.

Of course OOO should re-issue these "limited" items. They have been doing the right thing with the featured auction. I would further recommend them to consider re-issuing these items in the form of energy packs also to further keep the bubbles from building up.

One last thing for the audience to ponder (and this has been brought up earlier in Neodasus' post on securities). When top spending players (like Chris) have accumulated a ridiculous amount of CE, do you still think they would share the same desire to purchase CE with real money? And what if said players quit the game because they feel there are nothing more to do? The CE (together with whatever rare accessories / costumes) will go down with these players. Result is as Loest said, OOO doesn't make money because the CE hasn't been burned.

I feel like I am missing something. How is the CE people spent buying overpriced costumes from other players ever burned or consumed at all? That 80k CE someone spent to buy a costume transferred hands but until it is actually used on a CE sink provided by OOO, it hasn't really been used up. That 80k CE will stay in circulation until someone uses it in an elevator or for crafting or unbinding. Where is all this new revenue that OOO would get? The only way OOO would make money from this is if people actually bought $50 worth of energy for the express purpose of buying a 80k CE ccostume piece. I am having a hard time believing that if someone is willing to pay that much for a costume that there aren't other ways for OOO to get money from such a person. Most likely people would have bought energy regardless of whether they wanted to buy that costume. Buying that costume was just one of the many ways that a player could have spent that energy and it isn't even the best way in terms of profit for OOO.

The more you post, the less convinced I am that we actually disagree.

I also don't understand how binding or otherwise destroying a costume piece removes CE from the market. As far as I can tell, it does not.

Chris made that claim and I took exception to it.

I do not think that binding a Rose Hat destroys any CE at all, much less an amount of CE equal to its sale price.

I agree with Nodocchi entirely.

i also disagree with Chris.

"...you need to understand that when a set is bound, the CE IS removed from the game. I'm not talking about the moving of sets from merchant to merchant, this seems to be a common misconception in this thread."

It's funny how the word "bind" was not included in Chris' original post at all before he deleted it (most likely to prevent more people from realizing this). The entire point of this thread was not to convince people that binding costumes removes CE from the game (which is definitely not true), but to cease the featured auctions of rose chapeaus and tabards with the idea that selling something for 80k CE rather than 60k CE guarantees a 20k CE profit for OOO (also definitely not true). I don't know Chris well but I'm starting to understand why people dislike him. When you're incapable of having a logical debate, proclaim your own "advanced" knowledge in marketing and abandon the conversation altogether -rolls eyes-.

To sum up the argument you seem to be presenting in that post:

Maximizing the value of hats pools more CE in the hands of richer players. Richer players value the CE less, and (as a result) waste the CE more, thus generating more CE sales?

This argument is fundamentally different from the one that Chris was making, but I think it stands up better. It is true that the accumulation of CE in the hands of richer players effectively reduces the total value of CE in the market (that is, not the amount of CE but the sum of the values that each player places in their own stash) which could reasonably be expected to result in some amount of extra CE sales. I think it would be very tricky, though, to quantify those extra sales, and I think it's important to remember that the amount of CE being purchased to facilitate inter-player hat sales can only be maximized through continued hat releases. The two would have to be balanced against each other, and that's not math that I have the data or expertise to do.

I do suspect, however, that the extra CE sales that result from aggregation of wealth in the hands of speculators would prove to be, upon analysis, essentially trivial.

Both are essentially true. It all depends on how you're looking at it. Starting from the beginning, yes, you must pay OOO money to get your ce. If you look at it directly from the middle, though, you must get rid of your ce to need more ce and then give OOO your money for the new ce. Looking at things from different perspectives like this can often lead to new realizations and conclusions about economics n stuff.

I'm sure chris is right about most of the things he said. But without providing information about his viewing perspective, how can he believe people will accept his arguments at face value?