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

[Jynx]

It's a shame the chart doesn't tell us about actual activity and not just prices.

Lower prices doesn't mean they are making less money...

[axemtitanium]

It's a shame the chart doesn't tell us about actual activity and not just prices.

Lower prices doesn't mean they are making less money...

Actually it generally does. The only reason the price would go up or down is because of supply and demand. We can make a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery rough assumption that the same volume of RMT transactions holds equal across the timeline of the chart. The RMTers react to dips in volume of transactions by decreasing the price and surges in transactions by increasing the price (i.e. reacting to demand). Thus, when we see the price go down, it's because demand for RMT'd money has gone down and the RMTers have to lower their price to stay competitive and maintain their volume of transactions.

[Jynx]

Actually it generally does.

Corelation =/= Causation.

Just because it would make sense that lower prices meant slower sales, it could also just be they find they get overall more sales at this price point and find no need to adjust the price in a dog eat dog market. Having a stable customer base even for RMT isn't something to sneeze at.

I'm ashamed to admit I had some business dealings with RMT companies a while back (Not as a buyer but as a designer for their web-adds) and in the process I got to know one of the guy behind a fairly large english lead RMT market, it's pretty business like in their neck of the woods at least.

Not sure about the Chinese RMT, but the guy I knew would go for stabillity over short term profits and customer loss to the competition.

[Shougun]

Corelation =/= Causation.

Just because it would make sense that lower prices meant slower sales, it could also just be they find they get overall more sales at this price point and find no need to adjust the price in a dog eat dog market. Having a stable customer base even for RMT isn't something to sneeze at.

I'm ashamed to admit I had some business dealings with RMT companies a while back (Not as a buyer but as a designer for their web-adds) and in the process I got to know one of the guy behind a fairly large english lead RMT market, it's pretty business like in their neck of the woods at least.

Not sure about the Chinese RMT, but the guy I knew would go for stabillity over short term profits and customer loss to the competition.

And natural equilibrium over time. I knew a couple gold sellers in D3 - and I did a little my self (though it is legal in D3 :P) you over priced it and just brought it down as the market understood what it wanted to pay for. It wasnt blizzard doing anything other then the market had flux due to amount of players coming in, players coming out, and general understanding of worth.

Made a few hundred (dollars) XD.

Even with PLEX it is obvious RMT wasn't destroyed - PLEX just helped find the equilibrium price faster. And also made it legal to buy in game currency. PLEX != RMT killer.

All plex does is make gold -buying- allowed, and allow players who dont want to use real money to buy monthly passes.

[Abriael]

PLEX != RMT killer.

It's funny how people continue to try and refute something no one argued. Strawman anyone?

You can't kill RMT. No one argued that you can or that PLEX can. You can just damage it, and in the process reduce its ability to generate currency and inject it into the market (reducing it's inflation effect).

That's what PLEX Does, in addition to helping the game retain subscribers.

[syntaxlies]

as you can see from this super detailed diagram plex works for sure''


notice how high the rmt was before plex was in game, how how much it drops after

[syntaxlies]

Do you even have trains in Australia?

[Abriael]

It's a shame the chart doesn't tell us about actual activity and not just prices.

Lower prices doesn't mean they are making less money...

It actually does. The EVE population has grown constantly since it's beginning, so it's safe to assume that activity has grown. The only real dip in EVE population has been with the Incarna debacle from June 2011 to when CCP made amends in the winter (it has now recovered fully and more).

The fact that the price of ISK drops, still means that ISK sellers are making less money compared to what they would make if it was to remain constant, or grow, regardless of activity.

Not that we really need it to know that PLEX (and GTC before, but less because the system was kind of unwieldy) made a dent on the earnings of RMT.

When you introdice an element of competition in the market, profit always drops. And PLEX are an element of competition against RMT.

[Rylock]

You can check the current going prices on that mmobucks site, the current going price for isk appears to be ~$9 / 400m, which is less than the lowest price in the graph that covered the last few years, though it seems the price has been flat for a few months.



The big spikes in the market appear to coincide with expansions, chinese new year, and the big spike in 2009 seems to be when someone robbed a bank. Yep. There was a bank. And someone walked away with it. And then the CCP banned a bunch of farmers so people lost all their money and supplies were low.

[axemtitanium]

when someone robbed a bank. Yep. There was a bank. And someone walked away with it. And then the CCP banned a bunch of farmers so people lost all their money and supplies were low.

LOL I remember reading about that a few years ago. Informative link. Hilarious that it made the rounds on "regular" gaming news sites.

The OP has made it clear that he supports the concept of Real Money Trade if managed by the Devs. That is not up for debate, he has shown the support of using Real money as a means for virtual profit.

This chart has however been repeatedly thumped as proof of how it works. I felt that this was missing important data to be able to legitimately tie it to the core point, that it halts real money trade activity.

Based on the article, the plex implementation was not even considered when they made the graph. What does this mean for the relevance of the graph?

And even if it was tied to the graph indirectly, Plex implementation in 2008 means a 75% drop counting 2007 is an irresponsible claim.

I believe Rylock's post answers your other 3 questions sufficiently. I'm not sure what you mean by "Plex implementation in 2008 means a 75% drop counting 2007 is an irresponsible claim". You have to compare values from before and after the implementation of PLEX. 2007 is before and RMT costed $40. 2009 is after and RMT costed $10. There was an average decrease in RMT prices of 50% since the implementation of PLEX in 2008. The maximum decrease was 75%.