[MUD-Dev] BIZ: Ban selling of in-game items for real cash?

[Matt Mihaly]

From: Kwon J. Ekstrom
> Matt Mihaly wrote:
>> From: Kwon J. Ekstrom

>>> Thanks, I dislike "banning" practices from players... doing so

>> So banning, say, in-game sexual harassment isn't worthwhile? I'm
>> going to go ahead and strongly disagree with you there.

> Oh, we agree that sexual harrassment should be banned...

> However I don't see the logic of this statement?  Is giving away
> an bought item equiv to sexual harrassment?

Of course it's not. He just said he disliked banning practices from
players. That kind of blanket statement needs poking at, and I was
just pointing out that it's not true. Admin time is a cost/benefit
analysis.  Some practices are worth admin time, some aren't, and
it's going to differ world by world.


>> Nod, I understand that's your opinion, but why? Is that just your
>> personal preference from you-the-player or is there a reason for
>> it beyond that that you can back up with data or experience? I
>> don't think there are many people (any people?) on this list with
>> longer experience as a developer whose business model is built
>> around selling in-game items, and I'm missing your logic here.

> Here's what I was talking about:

> Any damage an item takes when not in it's owner's possession is
> irrepairable.  (depreciation)

I don't really see the point in this.

> You can add this (I posted on it, but it got returned, the spam
> filter doesn't like acronyms apparently...)

> 2. An item may be transfered to a new owner for a small fee.
> (sales tax)

> Depreciation devalues items... used items simply aren't as good as
> new. Items sold in the secondary market are automatically removed
> from the game, causing any secondary market to be unstable at
> best.

> Sales Tax, prevents further depreciation.  It also makes sure you
> get your fingers into the secondary market without having to do
> anything.

> Under these conditions, I don't see why bought items should be
> treated differently.

Well, because the developer may believe (and is probably right) that
he will make more money by simply banning the permanent transfer
unless you charge a sales tax so high that there's little point in
even having the system in.

> It's not an outright ban, it provides income from the secondary
> market. The players can get their hands on the goods for cheaper,
> perhaps

I'd rather there not be a secondary market. Being a total monopoly =
profit!

>> think there are many people (any people?) on this list with
>> longer experience as a developer whose business model is built
>> around selling in-game items, and I'm missing your logic here.

> Simply because it works for you (or me for that matter) does not
> mean that it is the only possibility.  I've stated my opinion with
> ideas on what might work.

Oh, sure, of course it doesn't mean it's the only possibility. I
just see the logic as pretty simple. If you're the only one with the
goods to sell, you're getting 100% of the cash from everyone who
buys that item.  Remember that there is no incremental cost per item
either. Again, monopoly = profit! Why let a secondary market try to
value items differently from what you choose to sell them for? Why
let them undercut you, especially when it's trivial to prevent?

--matt
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev