SE Please implement a Chonoscroll/PLEX system in FFXIV: ARR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxthunder

Sounds like someone is (dare I say it?) too lazy to go out and farm or craft. Just because it worked in another game dosent mean it will work in this game. The current system we have is fair, if you go and craft or farm matierals you can make gil, but... if you refuse to do any of the above for any reason its just plain laziness. It sounds like to me that instead of you putting work into making your gil you would rather take the easy way out and just buy your in game currency.

---

Making assumptions about other players of which you know nothing won't give any solidity to your argument.

The fact that it worked in other games (That have economies that are just as fair and actually work better than the FFXIV 1.0 economy, due to way better implemented auction and commerce systems), means that it's a sound system that has solid possibilities to be implemented just as soundly in this game.

Lazyness has nothing to do with it. My concern is hampering RMT firms and, even more importantly, helping the game to retain subs easier.

In this economy, that's not a small problem.

Lets call it what it is: Crysta.

A player buys crysta from lodestone with IRL money, and sells it in the market wards for gil.

Its a feature that makes it so that players can forego paying cash and instead paying a game currency toll to keep playing.

How again does this stop RMT? It seems to me to have little to do with RMT, apart from letting them play without having to pay a sub.

Conclusion: The RMT argument seems to hold little weight as a true benefit of this change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duuude007

Lets call it what it is: Crysta.

A player buys crysta from lodestone with IRL money, and sells it in the market wards for gil.

Its a feature that makes it so that players can forego paying cash and instead paying a game currency toll to keep playing.

How again does this stop RMT? It seems to me to have little to do with RMT, apart from letting them play without having to pay a sub.

---

That could work, even if it would be a little less intuitive (you have to buy the right number of crysta instead of buying a single item), but the effect would be pretty much equivalent, yes.

It hampers RMT because it gives player a legal outlet to convert real money into gil (it NEVER works the other way around, to be noted. you CANNOT convert chronoscrolls or PLEX back into real money) benefitting other players at the same time.

Players that want to do so, have two options:

1: purchase the plex/crhonoscroll/crysta/whateveryouwannacallit directly from Square Enix, legally and risking nothing.

2: purchase the gil from gillsellers, risking to be banned if uncovered or at the very least to see the gil removed, losing their purchase.

Most players would resort to option 1 as it's risk-free and completely guaranteed by Square Enix, removing a lot of potential customers from the gilseller market. At this point all the gilsellers can do to defend their business is to lower their prices enough to offset the risks for a sufficient amount of players. They can, but that still makes their business a lot less profitable, potentially sending many of them out of business or making them abandon the game as unprofitable for their time (it's better for them to work on games in which they don't have to cope with this sistem), as it cuts them where it hurts the most (in their wallet).

That's quite a dent in the gilselling business, with added benefits in other areas (account retention) as well.

So it creates a gil sink where people can indirectly buy gil with real money.

More power to you if you can convince SE to do this.
Personally I doubt they ever will, as it directly contradicts their EULA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duuude007

So it creates a gil sink where people can indirectly buy gil with real money.

More power to you if you can convince SE to do this.
Personally I doubt they ever will, as it directly contradicts their EULA.

---

Trying can't hurt.

ARR Will most probably have a new EULA anyway, and EULAs can be changed to suit a company's needs (it happens very often in this industry, all they have to do is to send you a mail communicating that it changed and asking you to aknowledge it again). They're not an expression of design philosopy, but just a legal artifice to keep the company's rear well protected.

I didnt read the whole thing tbh, but wouldn't this idea be hurt by the fact that legacy members and regular subscribers will have different monthly costs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mudd

I didnt read the whole thing tbh, but wouldn't this idea be hurt by the fact that legacy members and regular subscribers will have different monthly costs?

---

It would just mean that legacy members would still have to pay the same price for the chronoscroll/PLEX item as anyone else. The Legacy promotion didn't include this after all, but just their own account.

With this system you pay for someone else's account, not for yours, so if you want to use it as a seller, you pay the normal price.

As buyers legacy subbers would still benefit from it. Just a little less than others, as they would save less money.

After all I seriously hope legacy members will be the vast minority in ARR. Because if they aren't, the game is pretty much screwed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mudd

I didnt read the whole thing tbh, but wouldn't this idea be hurt by the fact that legacy members and regular subscribers will have different monthly costs?

---

Their monthly crysta price would be cheaper than non legacy monthly crysta price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duuude007

Yes, their crysta would be cheaper than non legacy crysta.

That in itself is an issue in fairness, heh.

---

Actually, using crysta solves the problem, as it's not the crysta that it's cheaper for them, but charging their own account simply requires less crysta.

Crysta has exactly the same price per unit whether you're a legacy subber or a normal subber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duuude007

I edited my correction before you replied.

---

But in that case there's no fairness problem, because the equation remains the same.