Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
64
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 01:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
So, I made a post the other day about the AUR refund. To put things out in the open, I would be one of those who receives millions of AUR if there's a refund. With that caveat admitting my bias out of the way, I still think there is a genuine case for CCP to do the refund.
The original plan was to refund most AUR items at their current AUR values. However, this plan was cancelled at the last moment, because some of us would receive millions of AUR. The stated concern, by CCP Eterne, was that "we realized this would give a hugely unfair advantage to these people". This as a reason, however, does not fly for three reasons: 1. It seems to entail that Dust 514 is "pay to win" 2. This "huge advantage" is available to anyone with deep outside-eve pockets (should we implement an AUR cap?) 3. This "huge advantage" is available to any rich EVE players, once the economies are merged
So it's not clear to me that it is a huge advantage, and if it is, then it's a problem for other reasons. Furthermore, CCP should keep in mind what people will be likely to spend their AUR on. I'm sure they have data on AUR spending habits, and I imagine a great deal of this AUR will go directly into boosters. In terms of advantage, this cannot be described as "huge". Perhaps on its own this would give a slight reason to cancel a refund, but it does not seem to me to be a particularly strong reason at all. Weighed against the considerations in favour of a refund, I do not think it is strong enough.
Now, there is one important reason why CCP may wish to not reimburse the AUR -- and that is, that it may affect their revenue. I think that is a legitimate concern, as that is what fuels Dust 514 development. However, I actually think it may possibly be *worse* for CCP's revenue to not reimburse the AUR now. Worse, that is, once these BPO's are able to be sold on the ISK market. It sounds like there are a lot of these BPO's spread among the closed beta players. Most likely thousands of each BPO, or of each of the most expensive ones. Once the market opens up, players will sell these BPO's, likely at significantly less than their converted ISK value, due to the large number available and likely demand. Players will buy these BPO's with ISK instead of AUR, and CCP loses revenue from those players who would have purchased those BPO's with AUR instead. If CCP reimburses the AUR instead, then a number of people such as myself will use that AUR on boosters I wouldn't have purchased anyway, or on other items I wouldn't have purchased anyway (I don't have outside-eve deep pockets). And some of that AUR will sit dormant, unspent. That is, CCP will lose some revenue, but not the full value of the AUR in revenue. On the other hand, without a refund, they will lose some revenue from ISK sold BPO's. Of course, not everyone who purchases a BPO with ISK would have bought that with AUR instead, but the existence of these BPO's will represent a loss of revenue.
Of course, there's lots of assumptions here. I, however, do not think that CCP's revenue will be obviously *worse* if they reimburse the AUR. I do think it could possibly be higher. At the very least, I think it is worth considering the possibility that a reimbursement might be their best option (or at least neutral) from an economic perspective.
And finally, there's the innocent victims of this change -- those people who didn't take advantage of the early beta lower prices, who have bought suits or militia bpo's on the basis of particular fits, and now want to skill into something different with the new Uprising skills. Or those who's suits are no longer available without investing significant SP's. These people are a strong case in favour of AUR refund, particularly since some appear to be claiming to not purchase any more AUR, or at least not for the moment. Weighed against the not-so-huge advantage, and the economic considerations, I think this last point tells strongly in favour of a refund. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1409
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 01:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote:So, I made a post the other day about the AUR refund. To put things out in the open, I would be one of those who receives millions of AUR if there's a refund. With that caveat admitting my bias out of the way, I still think there is a genuine case for CCP to do the refund. The original plan was to refund most AUR items at their current AUR values. However, this plan was cancelled at the last moment, because some of us would receive millions of AUR. The stated concern, by CCP Eterne, was that "we realized this would give a hugely unfair advantage to these people". This as a reason, however, does not fly for three reasons: 1. It seems to entail that Dust 514 is "pay to win" 2. This "huge advantage" is available to anyone with deep outside-eve pockets (should we implement an AUR cap?) 3. This "huge advantage" is available to any rich EVE players, once the economies are merged So it's not clear to me that it is a huge advantage, and if it is, then it's a problem for other reasons. Furthermore, CCP should keep in mind what people will be likely to spend their AUR on. I'm sure they have data on AUR spending habits, and I imagine a great deal of this AUR will go directly into boosters. In terms of advantage, this cannot be described as "huge". Perhaps on its own this would give a slight reason to cancel a refund, but it does not seem to me to be a particularly strong reason at all. Weighed against the considerations in favour of a refund, I do not think it is strong enough. Now, there is one important reason why CCP may wish to not reimburse the AUR -- and that is, that it may affect their revenue. I think that is a legitimate concern, as that is what fuels Dust 514 development. However, I actually think it may possibly be *worse* for CCP's revenue to not reimburse the AUR now. Worse, that is, once these BPO's are able to be sold on the ISK market. It sounds like there are a lot of these BPO's spread among the closed beta players. Most likely thousands of each BPO, or of each of the most expensive ones. Once the market opens up, players will sell these BPO's, likely at significantly less than their converted ISK value, due to the large number available and likely demand. Players will buy these BPO's with ISK instead of AUR, and CCP loses revenue from those players who would have purchased those BPO's with AUR instead. If CCP reimburses the AUR instead, then a number of people such as myself will use that AUR on boosters I wouldn't have purchased anyway, or on other items I wouldn't have purchased anyway (I don't have outside-eve deep pockets). And some of that AUR will sit dormant, unspent. That is, CCP will lose some revenue, but not the full value of the AUR in revenue. On the other hand, without a refund, they will lose some revenue from ISK sold BPO's. Of course, not everyone who purchases a BPO with ISK would have bought that with AUR instead, but the existence of these BPO's will represent a loss of revenue. Of course, there's lots of assumptions here. I, however, do not think that CCP's revenue will be obviously *worse* if they reimburse the AUR. I do think it could possibly be higher. At the very least, I think it is worth considering the possibility that a reimbursement might be their best option (or at least neutral) from an economic perspective. And finally, there's the innocent victims of this change -- those people who didn't take advantage of the early beta lower prices, who have bought suits or militia bpo's on the basis of particular fits, and now want to skill into something different with the new Uprising skills. Or those who's suits are no longer available without investing significant SP's. These people are a strong case in favour of AUR refund, particularly since some appear to be claiming to not purchase any more AUR, or at least not for the moment. Weighed against the not-so-huge advantage, and the economic considerations, I think this last point tells strongly in favour of a refund. They did do a refund. You just have to give up all your character progress in exchange.
Perfectly fair, considering all the factors involved. |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
65
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 01:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:
Perfectly fair, considering all the factors involved.
You are referring to a different offer, which was not the one that was originally intended (and is no longer mentioned in the original dev blog, but I'm quite sure was there at first -- see CCP Eterne's post for evidence of a change in plans). This offer you mention exists, but it's not the one I'm talking about.
And that is an offer only for "players that purchased the Mercenary Pack or Aurum Packs before January 22nd an optional full character reset with Mercenary Pack or Aurum reimbursement". How does that help players who made purchases after Jan 22nd?
How is that fair to the player who purchased a logistics BPO, but now with Amarr available wants to specialise in Amarr?
Or in something other than logistics?
Those with ISK are able to change their specialisation without a character wipe. I think you and I have a different sense of the word 'fair'. |
Phoenix Arakyd
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
34
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 01:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Why is it so hard to refund the AUR items at their original cost? |
S0LlD SNAKE
PLAYSTATION4
23
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 01:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Adapt or Die |
Thor Odinson42
Planetary Response Organization
170
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 01:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote:So, I made a post the other day about the AUR refund. To put things out in the open, I would be one of those who receives millions of AUR if there's a refund. With that caveat admitting my bias out of the way, I still think there is a genuine case for CCP to do the refund. The original plan was to refund most AUR items at their current AUR values. However, this plan was cancelled at the last moment, because some of us would receive millions of AUR. The stated concern, by CCP Eterne, was that "we realized this would give a hugely unfair advantage to these people". This as a reason, however, does not fly for three reasons: 1. It seems to entail that Dust 514 is "pay to win" 2. This "huge advantage" is available to anyone with deep outside-eve pockets (should we implement an AUR cap?) 3. This "huge advantage" is available to any rich EVE players, once the economies are merged So it's not clear to me that it is a huge advantage, and if it is, then it's a problem for other reasons. Furthermore, CCP should keep in mind what people will be likely to spend their AUR on. I'm sure they have data on AUR spending habits, and I imagine a great deal of this AUR will go directly into boosters. In terms of advantage, this cannot be described as "huge". Perhaps on its own this would give a slight reason to cancel a refund, but it does not seem to me to be a particularly strong reason at all. Weighed against the considerations in favour of a refund, I do not think it is strong enough. Now, there is one important reason why CCP may wish to not reimburse the AUR -- and that is, that it may affect their revenue. I think that is a legitimate concern, as that is what fuels Dust 514 development. However, I actually think it may possibly be *worse* for CCP's revenue to not reimburse the AUR now. Worse, that is, once these BPO's are able to be sold on the ISK market. It sounds like there are a lot of these BPO's spread among the closed beta players. Most likely thousands of each BPO, or of each of the most expensive ones. Once the market opens up, players will sell these BPO's, likely at significantly less than their converted ISK value, due to the large number available and likely demand. Players will buy these BPO's with ISK instead of AUR, and CCP loses revenue from those players who would have purchased those BPO's with AUR instead. If CCP reimburses the AUR instead, then a number of people such as myself will use that AUR on boosters I wouldn't have purchased anyway, or on other items I wouldn't have purchased anyway (I don't have outside-eve deep pockets). And some of that AUR will sit dormant, unspent. That is, CCP will lose some revenue, but not the full value of the AUR in revenue. On the other hand, without a refund, they will lose some revenue from ISK sold BPO's. Of course, not everyone who purchases a BPO with ISK would have bought that with AUR instead, but the existence of these BPO's will represent a loss of revenue. Of course, there's lots of assumptions here. I, however, do not think that CCP's revenue will be obviously *worse* if they reimburse the AUR. I do think it could possibly be higher. At the very least, I think it is worth considering the possibility that a reimbursement might be their best option (or at least neutral) from an economic perspective. And finally, there's the innocent victims of this change -- those people who didn't take advantage of the early beta lower prices, who have bought suits or militia bpo's on the basis of particular fits, and now want to skill into something different with the new Uprising skills. Or those who's suits are no longer available without investing significant SP's. These people are a strong case in favour of AUR refund, particularly since some appear to be claiming to not purchase any more AUR, or at least not for the moment. Weighed against the not-so-huge advantage, and the economic considerations, I think this last point tells strongly in favour of a refund. This is the same reason I thought it would have been best for them to just refund all of the AUR minus that used for boosters.
It would have kept CCP's relationship with their paying customers favorable. I'll be skilling up nanocircuitry to L5 this week so I don't have to use AUR items anymore. With my boosters and the amount of AUR I currently have I won't be giving them a dime for about 8 months. At that time I may not use boosters anymore.
If they hadn't screwed us over I'd be spending $25 -$50/month. |
DUST Fiend
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
2829
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 01:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
It is funny that their argument basically says "AUR gives too much of an advantage"
|
Thor Odinson42
Planetary Response Organization
170
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 01:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Winsaucerer wrote:So, I made a post the other day about the AUR refund. To put things out in the open, I would be one of those who receives millions of AUR if there's a refund. With that caveat admitting my bias out of the way, I still think there is a genuine case for CCP to do the refund. The original plan was to refund most AUR items at their current AUR values. However, this plan was cancelled at the last moment, because some of us would receive millions of AUR. The stated concern, by CCP Eterne, was that "we realized this would give a hugely unfair advantage to these people". This as a reason, however, does not fly for three reasons: 1. It seems to entail that Dust 514 is "pay to win" 2. This "huge advantage" is available to anyone with deep outside-eve pockets (should we implement an AUR cap?) 3. This "huge advantage" is available to any rich EVE players, once the economies are merged So it's not clear to me that it is a huge advantage, and if it is, then it's a problem for other reasons. Furthermore, CCP should keep in mind what people will be likely to spend their AUR on. I'm sure they have data on AUR spending habits, and I imagine a great deal of this AUR will go directly into boosters. In terms of advantage, this cannot be described as "huge". Perhaps on its own this would give a slight reason to cancel a refund, but it does not seem to me to be a particularly strong reason at all. Weighed against the considerations in favour of a refund, I do not think it is strong enough. Now, there is one important reason why CCP may wish to not reimburse the AUR -- and that is, that it may affect their revenue. I think that is a legitimate concern, as that is what fuels Dust 514 development. However, I actually think it may possibly be *worse* for CCP's revenue to not reimburse the AUR now. Worse, that is, once these BPO's are able to be sold on the ISK market. It sounds like there are a lot of these BPO's spread among the closed beta players. Most likely thousands of each BPO, or of each of the most expensive ones. Once the market opens up, players will sell these BPO's, likely at significantly less than their converted ISK value, due to the large number available and likely demand. Players will buy these BPO's with ISK instead of AUR, and CCP loses revenue from those players who would have purchased those BPO's with AUR instead. If CCP reimburses the AUR instead, then a number of people such as myself will use that AUR on boosters I wouldn't have purchased anyway, or on other items I wouldn't have purchased anyway (I don't have outside-eve deep pockets). And some of that AUR will sit dormant, unspent. That is, CCP will lose some revenue, but not the full value of the AUR in revenue. On the other hand, without a refund, they will lose some revenue from ISK sold BPO's. Of course, not everyone who purchases a BPO with ISK would have bought that with AUR instead, but the existence of these BPO's will represent a loss of revenue. Of course, there's lots of assumptions here. I, however, do not think that CCP's revenue will be obviously *worse* if they reimburse the AUR. I do think it could possibly be higher. At the very least, I think it is worth considering the possibility that a reimbursement might be their best option (or at least neutral) from an economic perspective. And finally, there's the innocent victims of this change -- those people who didn't take advantage of the early beta lower prices, who have bought suits or militia bpo's on the basis of particular fits, and now want to skill into something different with the new Uprising skills. Or those who's suits are no longer available without investing significant SP's. These people are a strong case in favour of AUR refund, particularly since some appear to be claiming to not purchase any more AUR, or at least not for the moment. Weighed against the not-so-huge advantage, and the economic considerations, I think this last point tells strongly in favour of a refund. They did do a refund. You just have to give up all your character progress in exchange. Perfectly fair, considering all the factors involved.
No way any person being serious could consider that fair.
|
Citpaan Hacos
BetaMax. CRONOS.
40
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 02:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
Phoenix Arakyd wrote:Why is it so hard to refund the AUR items at their original cost?
Because if they did that, the people who had legitimately gotten a full set of BPOs at the old price wouldn't be able to reobtain the set of BPOs with that amount of AUR. (icr the precise numbers now, but the old cost of a full set of infantry and vehicle module BPOs was about 1000 AUR, or $0.50. Now it costs about $120.)
It's not a problem for people who JUST got a set of BPOs and left it at that, but if you had, say, dropped $20 and bought 40 sets of BPOs, you'd end up with nearly FIVE THOUSAND dollars worth of AUR.
That's about 13 years of constant passive/active boosters.
For twenty dollars. |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
65
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 02:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Phoenix Arakyd wrote:Why is it so hard to refund the AUR items at their original cost?
If by "original cost" you mean the 30 or so AUR I paid for each BPO, the reason is simple: I bought those items legitimately, and in normal transactions the seller doesn't get to say later, "look, we want to take back your house and bump the price up 10x, but don't worry, we'll give you back the price you originally paid, and you can buy it back at the 10x price...if you like!".
Those are my BPO's, so after any refund I'd better be able to repurchase them back without losing anything. |
|
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1409
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 02:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Thor Odinson42 wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Winsaucerer wrote:So, I made a post the other day about the AUR refund. To put things out in the open, I would be one of those who receives millions of AUR if there's a refund. With that caveat admitting my bias out of the way, I still think there is a genuine case for CCP to do the refund. The original plan was to refund most AUR items at their current AUR values. However, this plan was cancelled at the last moment, because some of us would receive millions of AUR. The stated concern, by CCP Eterne, was that "we realized this would give a hugely unfair advantage to these people". This as a reason, however, does not fly for three reasons: 1. It seems to entail that Dust 514 is "pay to win" 2. This "huge advantage" is available to anyone with deep outside-eve pockets (should we implement an AUR cap?) 3. This "huge advantage" is available to any rich EVE players, once the economies are merged So it's not clear to me that it is a huge advantage, and if it is, then it's a problem for other reasons. Furthermore, CCP should keep in mind what people will be likely to spend their AUR on. I'm sure they have data on AUR spending habits, and I imagine a great deal of this AUR will go directly into boosters. In terms of advantage, this cannot be described as "huge". Perhaps on its own this would give a slight reason to cancel a refund, but it does not seem to me to be a particularly strong reason at all. Weighed against the considerations in favour of a refund, I do not think it is strong enough. Now, there is one important reason why CCP may wish to not reimburse the AUR -- and that is, that it may affect their revenue. I think that is a legitimate concern, as that is what fuels Dust 514 development. However, I actually think it may possibly be *worse* for CCP's revenue to not reimburse the AUR now. Worse, that is, once these BPO's are able to be sold on the ISK market. It sounds like there are a lot of these BPO's spread among the closed beta players. Most likely thousands of each BPO, or of each of the most expensive ones. Once the market opens up, players will sell these BPO's, likely at significantly less than their converted ISK value, due to the large number available and likely demand. Players will buy these BPO's with ISK instead of AUR, and CCP loses revenue from those players who would have purchased those BPO's with AUR instead. If CCP reimburses the AUR instead, then a number of people such as myself will use that AUR on boosters I wouldn't have purchased anyway, or on other items I wouldn't have purchased anyway (I don't have outside-eve deep pockets). And some of that AUR will sit dormant, unspent. That is, CCP will lose some revenue, but not the full value of the AUR in revenue. On the other hand, without a refund, they will lose some revenue from ISK sold BPO's. Of course, not everyone who purchases a BPO with ISK would have bought that with AUR instead, but the existence of these BPO's will represent a loss of revenue. Of course, there's lots of assumptions here. I, however, do not think that CCP's revenue will be obviously *worse* if they reimburse the AUR. I do think it could possibly be higher. At the very least, I think it is worth considering the possibility that a reimbursement might be their best option (or at least neutral) from an economic perspective. And finally, there's the innocent victims of this change -- those people who didn't take advantage of the early beta lower prices, who have bought suits or militia bpo's on the basis of particular fits, and now want to skill into something different with the new Uprising skills. Or those who's suits are no longer available without investing significant SP's. These people are a strong case in favour of AUR refund, particularly since some appear to be claiming to not purchase any more AUR, or at least not for the moment. Weighed against the not-so-huge advantage, and the economic considerations, I think this last point tells strongly in favour of a refund. They did do a refund. You just have to give up all your character progress in exchange. Perfectly fair, considering all the factors involved. No way any person being serious could consider that fair. Alright, I was confused as to what exactly the OP was referring to.
However, if you're saying it's unfair that CCP refuses to refund AURUM to people who spent it on things like skill boosters that have given them more SP than other players without requiring you to give up that SP, then you must not be being serious yourself. |
Disturbingly Bored
Universal Allies Inc.
194
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 02:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:It is funny that their argument basically says "AUR gives too much of an advantage"
Whatever the stated argument is, it boiled down to a simple calculus on the back end.
Having several players with millions of AUR in their accounts also creates a long standing thorn that they have to account for whenever they decide to introduce a new way to spend AUR. It causes a detriment to future revenue streams if some new way to spend AUR is either tradable, or would be desirable to the people who have a mountain of AUR to spend.
Having several players with hundreds of BPOs in their accounts causes less of a problem, as it only deflates the ISK value of those BPOs once they open up a proper market. (You cannot directly trade for AUR on the EVE market, I'd bet good money you won't be able to on the DUST market.) There were only so many BPOs that were purchased cheaply, and there will not be any more in the future.
Choice 1: instability, liability, damaged revenue. Choice 2: minor market inconvenience. Guess which CCP is going to pick.
As always, caveat emptor, muthafu****. |
Thor Odinson42
Planetary Response Organization
170
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 02:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
I don't think SP should remain from boosters if AUR was totally refunded. I think it would be much easier to sort out the AUR spent on boosters and take that out of the refund.
I don't even want that (although I'd happily take it), I want the AUR for the BPO's. |
Citpaan Hacos
BetaMax. CRONOS.
40
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 02:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
Disturbingly Bored wrote:Whatever the stated argument is, it boiled down to a simple calculus on the back end.
Having several players with millions of AUR in their accounts also creates a long standing thorn that they have to account for whenever they decide to introduce a new way to spend AUR. It causes a detriment to future revenue streams if some new way to spend AUR is either tradable, or would be desirable to the people who have a mountain of AUR to spend.
1% represent.
God I love EVE and economics, it never stops being applicable.
CCP nothin/Eino, you HAVE to do a dev blog or econ talk on this AUR situation one day. (Or just keep the info handy for the next month, if there is one & you're at the E3 fan event, I may bug you about it.) |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
66
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 02:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
Disturbingly Bored wrote: Having several players with millions of AUR in their accounts also creates a long standing thorn that they have to account for whenever they decide to introduce a new way to spend AUR. It causes a detriment to future revenue streams if some new way to spend AUR is either tradable, or would be desirable to the people who have a mountain of AUR to spend.
This problem exists anyway, once the current BPO's are tradeable. It either hurts their revenue one day on these specific items (choice 2), or else on these and unspecified future items (choice 1). However, I have given reasons to suggest that the revenue loss may be less with a refund now.
Quote:Having several players with hundreds of BPOs in their accounts causes less of a problem, as it only deflates the ISK value of those BPOs once they open up a proper market. (You cannot directly trade for AUR on the EVE market, I'd bet good money you won't be able to on the DUST market.) There were only so many BPOs that were purchased cheaply, and there will not be any more in the future.
And deflated ISK value translates into loss of revenue. Those BPO's don't disappear -- players buy them, and for a deflated ISK price, thus cutting into CCP's revenue.
So I do not think your analysis clearly shows that there is a strong reason to avoid a refund. However, the innocent players hurt by this are a strong reason to give a refund.
There is no doubt that there are considerations on both sides. The question is, which is overall the best option? I've made what I think is a case that the better option is a refund. What you mention might be a consideration in favour of not refunding, but it's not clear to me right now that it's saying anything new or that it's a strong consideration against a refund. |
Stexn byd
IMPSwarm Negative-Feedback
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 03:06:00 -
[16] - Quote
The BPO argument is moot. Lets face it, either the fanbois QQing about ppl having more AUR through increased market value ruined the trust those of us who both read and were able to comprehend the promises made in our merc pack purchases from CCP, or CCP after acknowledging that the game is pay to win and just betrayed our trust outright. Either way it spells the end of my investing in this game, that's 20+ dollars a week they won't be getting from me anymore unless they decide to live up to the deal and refund it to us without stipulation of a skill reset. I'll continue to play the free, broken, game until a new fps comes out at which point I'll be on my merry way. I loved this game, Really was liking EVE too, but after this inexcusable decision to follow a dishonest course of action on CCP's part It's doubtful that I'll ever be paying them another dime for either game and I'll be warning everyone I meet not to do so either. I suggest you all do the same. |
Stexn byd
IMPSwarm Negative-Feedback
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 03:07:00 -
[17] - Quote
Disturbingly Bored wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:It is funny that their argument basically says "AUR gives too much of an advantage" Whatever the stated argument is, it boiled down to a simple calculus on the back end. Having several players with millions of AUR in their accounts also creates a long standing thorn that they have to account for whenever they decide to introduce a new way to spend AUR. It causes a detriment to future revenue streams if some new way to spend AUR is either tradable, or would be desirable to the people who have a mountain of AUR to spend. Having several players with hundreds of BPOs in their accounts causes less of a problem, as it only deflates the ISK value of those BPOs once they open up a proper market. (You cannot directly trade for AUR on the EVE market, I'd bet good money you won't be able to on the DUST market.) There were only so many BPOs that were purchased cheaply, and there will not be any more in the future. Choice 1: instability, liability, damaged revenue. Choice 2: minor market inconvenience. Guess which CCP is going to pick. As always, caveat emptor, muthafu****. lol... yeah. Keep telling yourself that. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2767
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 03:11:00 -
[18] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:They did do a refund. You just have to give up all your character progress in exchange.
Perfectly fair, considering all the factors involved. No way any person being serious could consider that fair. Alright, I was confused as to what exactly the OP was referring to. However, if you're saying it's unfair that CCP refuses to refund AURUM to people who spent it on things like skill boosters that have given them more SP than other players without requiring you to give up that SP, then you must not be being serious yourself. You may want to check what Merc Pack customers are ACTUALLY asking for before complaining about Boosters.
The AUR refund offered specifically excluded Boosters. The requested refund of the Merc Pack specifically excludes Boosters.
We want the AUR back for things we bought that WEREN'T Boosters, and that DIDN'T give us extra SP, but may have saved us some ISK over time with fittings we otherwise would have spent ISK on.
There was no way for anyone, back when BPOs were 30 AUR each, to know that they would skyrocket in price like they have. If anyone stockpiled them at the time, they were crazy. I doubt there are going to be many people seeing the kind of stupid numbers CCP are afraid of - and if there are, by CCP's usual logic, "well played, risk paid off" should really be the appropriate response. |
Stexn byd
IMPSwarm Negative-Feedback
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 03:13:00 -
[19] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:They did do a refund. You just have to give up all your character progress in exchange.
Perfectly fair, considering all the factors involved. No way any person being serious could consider that fair. Alright, I was confused as to what exactly the OP was referring to. However, if you're saying it's unfair that CCP refuses to refund AURUM to people who spent it on things like skill boosters that have given them more SP than other players without requiring you to give up that SP, then you must not be being serious yourself. You may want to check what Merc Pack customers are ACTUALLY asking for before complaining about Boosters. The AUR refund offered specifically excluded Boosters. The requested refund of the Merc Pack specifically excludes Boosters. We want the AUR back for things we bought that WEREN'T Boosters, and that DIDN'T give us extra SP, but may have saved us some ISK over time with fittings we otherwise would have spent ISK on. There was no way for anyone, back when BPOs were 30 AUR each, to know that they would skyrocket in price like they have. If anyone stockpiled them at the time, they were crazy. I doubt there are going to be many people seeing the kind of stupid numbers CCP are afraid of - and if there are, by CCP's usual logic, "well played, risk paid off" should really be the appropriate response. +1 |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
67
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 03:17:00 -
[20] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote: There was no way for anyone, back when BPOs were 30 AUR each, to know that they would skyrocket in price like they have.
This is not quite true. CCP announced (days?) prior that the BPO's would go up to about 300 or so each from 30. At that stage I had thought I would not bother. Then, 30 minutes before the DT that gave the price rises, they posted a new update that I was fortunate enough to see -- the prices were going up sometimes as high as 11,800 each. That gave a 30 minute opportunity based on the knowledge of an 11k price.
So there was a way to know in advance, but for the high prices we see now, only 30 minutes advance warning. |
|
First Prophet
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows
69
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 03:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:It is funny that their argument basically says "AUR gives too much of an advantage" This. |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
67
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 04:43:00 -
[22] - Quote
First Prophet wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:It is funny that their argument basically says "AUR gives too much of an advantage" This.
That's the thing that gets me :)
And just on an unrelated topic, there's plenty of things I love about Uprising. I'm hoping just to give feedback on one aspect I think was not done well. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2773
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 04:56:00 -
[23] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote: There was no way for anyone, back when BPOs were 30 AUR each, to know that they would skyrocket in price like they have.
This is not quite true. CCP announced (days?) prior that the BPO's would go up to about 300 or so each from 30. At that stage I had thought I would not bother. Then, 30 minutes before the DT that gave the price rises, they posted a new update that I was fortunate enough to see -- the prices were going up sometimes as high as 11,800 each. That gave a 30 minute opportunity based on the knowledge of an 11k price. So there was a way to know in advance, but for the high prices we see now, only 30 minutes advance warning. There was no way to know, at the time, that they would go up to the 4000+ they are now, when we were told they would go up to maybe 300 or something.
There was also know way to know that we'd be getting a refund on them and buy them up in bulk so we can have huge piles of AUR to spend on whatever we want. |
Disturbingly Bored
Universal Allies Inc.
194
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 05:43:00 -
[24] - Quote
Stexn byd wrote: lol... yeah. Keep telling yourself that.
I don't need to convince myself of anything. I'm not QQing over a lost AUR goldmine. I'm happy with the BPOs I have.
Winsaucerer wrote: And deflated ISK value translates into loss of revenue. Those BPO's don't disappear -- players buy them, and for a deflated ISK price, thus cutting into CCP's revenue.
Not quite so. The BPOs don't deflate the value of ISK as a whole, only for Militia BPOs.
A massive influx of AUR deflates the value of anything you could possible buy with AUR.
One affects a limited number of items, which cannot be bought for the cheap price again at any point in the future, and the other affects the cost of all AUR items across the board until all that spontaneously generated moolah is spent.
|
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
68
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 09:18:00 -
[25] - Quote
Disturbingly Bored wrote: Not quite so. The BPOs don't deflate the value of ISK as a whole, only for Militia BPOs.
The BPO's don't deflate the value of ISK at all. The value of ISK would be in terms of what, and how much, it can get you. Pumping more goods into the market, all other things equal, would increase the value of ISK. What gets decreased is the ISK value of these BPO's
Disturbingly Bored wrote:One affects a limited number of items, which cannot be bought for the cheap price again at any point in the future, and the other affects the cost of all AUR items across the board until all that spontaneously generated moolah is spent.
You say that one option affects a limited number of items, while the other affects all AUR items, as though that's a bad thing. But that doesn't follow. Suppose that someone has a debt of $100, and we spread that debt across 100,000 people. Now it affects 100,000 people instead of 1, but the debt per person is 1 tenth of a cent each. So it's not obvious that something bad affecting more people is worse. And a similar thing is true in this AUR case. I am making the contrary-to-intuitions suggestion that CCP is BETTER off economically (or, at the very least, not obviously worse off), if they do the refund.
We have potentially thousands of these bpo's in player hangers at the moment. When those go on market, their ISK value goes down, probably significantly. Now consider the player who would ordinarily buy those items with AUR. He has a choice (making up numbers): buy a plex for $20 to get ISK for 6 blueprints, or buy AUR to get 2 blueprints.
But if we do a refund, those items are not on market. Instead, those with lots of AUR are free to buy the AUR items that are closest in ISK to their converted AUR to ISK value (maximise their ISK profit). So the "problem" is spread across a much larger array of items. Now the player who would ordinarily buy those items with AUR has a choice: buy a plex for $20 to get ISK for 2 blueprints (maybe a tad bit more), or buy AUR to get 2 blueprints. The market should ideally stabilise, and thus by spreading the damage across more items, it is at least possible that CCP can increase their revenue. That is, it's not going to be as compelling to use ISK if you are the sort of person who would otherwise use AUR.
My contention is simply this: it *might* be better for CCP to reimburse, and I think it's at least worth considering. I don't have all the information I need to evaluate this question, but I'm making the point that it's not obvious that it's worse for CCP to not refund. |
Arramakaian Eka
Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic
465
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 09:44:00 -
[26] - Quote
Unfortunately this is just another way CCP has demonstrated that they will do as they please with their customers' money and assets - or at the least are entirely incapable of judging the repercussions of their actions. Not sure which is worse.
The Merc Pack refund issue is another one. These are enough reasons that I won't be buying any more Merc Packs, or spend money on Dust.
edit: as someone who works in corporate finance for a living, refunding AUR items at their current price would inflate CCP's liability to their customers (players). Depending on how many of these BPOs are out there, we could talk about hundreds or millions of euros. It will not happen. Period. |
Disturbingly Bored
Universal Allies Inc.
194
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 13:31:00 -
[27] - Quote
Arramakaian Eka wrote:edit: as someone who works in corporate finance for a living, refunding AUR items at their current price would inflate CCP's liability to their customers (players). Depending on how many of these BPOs are out there, we could talk about hundreds or millions of euros. It will not happen. Period.
That's one of the point I was trying to make, but you said it better. +1
Though I think it's simply a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, which happens in every reasonably large company.
The left hand of game design and customer service thought a refund was a fair idea. The right hand of accounting said "Aw hell naw!"
Money always wins. |
Knarf Black
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
687
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 13:51:00 -
[28] - Quote
Easy fix: turn the suits into basic frame BPOs.
That way they are still accessible to the original owners with a more manageable SP investment, and also somewhat less valuable on the secondary market. (Otherwise, I'm interested in taking someone's logi suit off their hands once trading is enabled.)
Maybe give them some kind of minor perk, to appease people unhappy over the loss of value. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2820
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 14:01:00 -
[29] - Quote
Knarf Black wrote:Easy fix: turn the suits into basic frame BPOs. How does that solve the issue of people who no longer want to be connected with the race that Dropsuit was for? |
Arramakaian Eka
Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic
470
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 23:20:00 -
[30] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Knarf Black wrote:Easy fix: turn the suits into basic frame BPOs. How does that solve the issue of people who no longer want to be connected with the race that Dropsuit was for?
Exactly. I have a Kindred suit which would require me to spend million+ SP just to wear it. That's a vanity suit, but I'm sure it's the same with some of the BPOs. |
|
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
70
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 23:45:00 -
[31] - Quote
Arramakaian Eka wrote: edit: as someone who works in corporate finance for a living, refunding AUR items at their current price would inflate CCP's liability to their customers (players). Depending on how many of these BPOs are out there, we could talk about hundreds or millions of euros. It will not happen. Period.
I acknowledge that your professional life gives you expertise that I lack, but just stating it does not help me understand. And it won't be millions of euros :)
As it stands, I think that I have provided a compelling reason to think that even if not a good choice for CCP economics, a refund isn't obviously a bad choice either. Combine that with the customers who are genuinely harmed by the lack of a refund, and then you have a strong case in favour of refund. Now, you suggest that there is some liability towards customers that CCP would increase by a refund. But I don't see how this follows. Right now CCP has a liability in terms of providing and maintaining these BPO's in our inventory. If they were to refund AUR, they would shift that liability from one system to another. It merely gives players the ability to *change* their digital stock. The system's are in place, so I don't see how this represents an increase in a form of liability. CCP needs to either maintain their AUR wallet and the ability to purchase items, or maintain their already purchased digital items. And they already do both those things, and plan to continue to do so.
But besides all this, there is the question of whether a refund will *cost* them. That's where my previous arguments enter. Does a refund potentially make them more real world $$? That seems to me an open question, and the answer is not obviously "No". |
Zero Harpuia
WarRavens Orion Empire
447
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 02:03:00 -
[32] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote:Arramakaian Eka wrote: edit: as someone who works in corporate finance for a living, refunding AUR items at their current price would inflate CCP's liability to their customers (players). Depending on how many of these BPOs are out there, we could talk about hundreds or millions of euros. It will not happen. Period.
I acknowledge that your professional life gives you expertise that I lack, but just stating it does not help me understand. And it won't be millions of euros :) As it stands, I think that I have provided a compelling reason to think that even if not a good choice for CCP economics, a refund isn't obviously a bad choice either. Combine that with the customers who are genuinely harmed by the lack of a refund, and then you have a strong case in favour of refund. Now, you suggest that there is some liability towards customers that CCP would increase by a refund. But I don't see how this follows. Right now CCP has a liability in terms of providing and maintaining these BPO's in our inventory. If they were to refund AUR, they would shift that liability from one system to another. It merely gives players the ability to *change* their digital stock. The system's are in place, so I don't see how this represents an increase in a form of liability. CCP needs to either maintain their AUR wallet and the ability to purchase items, or maintain their already purchased digital items. And they already do both those things, and plan to continue to do so. But besides all this, there is the question of whether a refund will *cost* them. That's where my previous arguments enter. Does a refund potentially make them more real world $$? That seems to me an open question, and the answer is not obviously "No".
Actually, what Eka meant was the part on a spreadsheet labelled Liability, not the commonly thought of idea of A LIABILITY. In accounting, a liability is wherever you stand to have lost money, whether on a bad investment, damages, upkeep, etc. Just wanted to clear that up. Going to college was now not a complete waste :D
Productively, they need to give some form of refund, else their PR is gonna fall like a Dropship on a crash couse with a couple of Breach Forges, but giving a full refund at current prices puts them at a massive disadvantage and costs them, theoretically of course I don't have numbers, a ton of the green stuff. However, not giving a refund and expecting the EVE free market to sort itself out once DUST fully links to EVE will cause a massive gulf of distrust, which may prevent further sales in some, but in a principle I like to call the 'You're EA's Whipping Boy Syndrome', they may be able to take the hit because some people will just keep coming back. There needs to be some kind of middle ground, worked out carefully between the players and the company. NOT through the CPM or whatever their acronym is, although they could help get the ball rolling. This has GOT to be done by the monetarily invested players and the company they invested stock in.
Finally, I didn't buy any AURUM crap because you have to be an utter MORON to buy into a Beta title, WOOPWOOPWOOPWOOPWOOP!!! |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
71
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 02:14:00 -
[33] - Quote
Zero Harpuia wrote:
Actually, what Eka meant was the part on a spreadsheet labelled Liability, not the commonly thought of idea of A LIABILITY. In accounting, a liability is wherever you stand to have lost money, whether on a bad investment, damages, upkeep, etc. Just wanted to clear that up. Going to college was now not a complete waste :D
This I had actually realised :) But I didn't think this was Eka's point, because it doesn't make any sense. You give CCP real world money, they give you Aurum in return. Aurum can be converted into whatever goods are available on market at the time. And these are digital goods. So it's not like you have a $3000 credit with a store that has to give you an item that they could have sold to someone else. CCP has an effectively infinite supply of these things...so the costs are merely in terms of server maintenance, electricity costs, and the code necessary to continue the existence of these digital goods -- code that will be in place anyway. If this is to count as a liability in the sense you describe, then it has to be the case that refunding AUR for all these BPO's is going to reduce CCP's revenue in some direct way. It's not going to in the same way a typical store credit would. It's going to in a simple way - the handful of beneficiaries of a refund will potentially not purchase some aurum for $$ that they otherwise would have. And then there's the flip side -- it may actually INCREASE revenue in terms of distributing the damage of a flood of AUR items over many items, instead of a few. That's the case I've been trying to make.
Quote:Productively, they need to give some form of refund, else their PR is gonna fall like a Dropship on a crash couse with a couple of Breach Forges, but giving a full refund at current prices puts them at a massive disadvantage and costs them, theoretically of course I don't have numbers, a ton of the green stuff.
I don't think this is the case. This is what I have been trying to argue. It is at the very least not obvious that this will be a disadvantage to them at all, let alone a massive one. Digital items just don't work in the same way as real world physical goods, though they have similarities. I'm sure you're aware of, for example, the ridiculous way some "income lost to piracy" values are calculated. There are many subtleties that must be considered.
And then there is the obvious disadvantage of not refunding, in terms of some disgruntled customers and lack of trust, which you rightly point out in a part I didn't quote. |
JL3Eleven
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
396
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 02:36:00 -
[34] - Quote
Stexn byd wrote:The BPO argument is moot. Lets face it, either the fanbois QQing about ppl having more AUR through increased market value ruined the trust those of us who both read and were able to comprehend the promises made in our merc pack purchases from CCP, or CCP after acknowledging that the game is pay to win and just betrayed our trust outright. Either way it spells the end of my investing in this game, that's 20+ dollars a week they won't be getting from me anymore unless they decide to live up to the deal and refund it to us without stipulation of a skill reset. I'll continue to play the free, broken, game until a new fps comes out at which point I'll be on my merry way. I loved this game, Really was liking EVE too, but after this inexcusable decision to follow a dishonest course of action on CCP's part It's doubtful that I'll ever be paying them another dime for either game and I'll be warning everyone I meet not to do so either. I suggest you all do the same.
This^ |
Zero Harpuia
WarRavens Orion Empire
447
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 02:36:00 -
[35] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote:Zero Harpuia wrote:
Actually, what Eka meant was the part on a spreadsheet labelled Liability, not the commonly thought of idea of A LIABILITY. In accounting, a liability is wherever you stand to have lost money, whether on a bad investment, damages, upkeep, etc. Just wanted to clear that up. Going to college was now not a complete waste :D
This I had actually realised :) But I didn't think this was Eka's point, because it doesn't make any sense. You give CCP real world money, they give you Aurum in return. Aurum can be converted into whatever goods are available on market at the time. And these are digital goods. So it's not like you have a $3000 credit with a store that has to give you an item that they could have sold to someone else. CCP has an effectively infinite supply of these things...so the costs are merely in terms of server maintenance, electricity costs, and the code necessary to continue the existence of these digital goods -- code that will be in place anyway. If this is to count as a liability in the sense you describe, then it has to be the case that refunding AUR for all these BPO's is going to reduce CCP's revenue in some direct way. It's not going to in the same way a typical store credit would. It's going to in a simple way - the handful of beneficiaries of a refund will potentially not purchase some aurum for $$ that they otherwise would have. And then there's the flip side -- it may actually INCREASE revenue in terms of distributing the damage of a flood of AUR items over many items, instead of a few. That's the case I've been trying to make. Quote:Productively, they need to give some form of refund, else their PR is gonna fall like a Dropship on a crash couse with a couple of Breach Forges, but giving a full refund at current prices puts them at a massive disadvantage and costs them, theoretically of course I don't have numbers, a ton of the green stuff. I don't think this is the case. This is what I have been trying to argue. It is at the very least not obvious that this will be a disadvantage to them at all, let alone a massive one. Digital items just don't work in the same way as real world physical goods, though they have similarities. I'm sure you're aware of, for example, the ridiculous way some "income lost to piracy" values are calculated. There are many subtleties that must be considered. And then there is the obvious disadvantage of not refunding, in terms of some disgruntled customers and lack of trust, which you rightly point out in a part I didn't quote.
I understand the concept of digital goods sales and all the smoke and mirrors that cloud the issue to prevent fair play (I'm not buying a full price download only game PSN, stop screwing with me :l) , but I think that may be part of the issue. When a brick-and-mortar store gives a refund, there is a net zero exchange of funds. I payed 59.99 for this new game, and returned it for the same price in refund because (insert reason here). Here however, there is a disconnect. They want to give refunds in Aurum for the objects, but because they can just dictate the price of an object willynilly here as has been demonstrated several times throughout the last build, the Aurum the object is now worth is far more than the initial investment, which causes a loss. I'm sure you understand this, but I just wanted to lay the groundwork because I hate it when people go 'as you should already know' and leave it at that.
If they do give out Aurum refunds, do they give them as refund of purchase, or cash-in of stock? Players had no way of knowing they were buying a stock, so it feels odd to punish them with that being the reason, that they 'played the market.' On the other hand, if they return purchase price the players may feel cheated because, even though they received their exact investment, that investment has far less mileage in the current build. CCP's hands are tied, likely due to marketing or accounting needing to keep them from saying anything definite and forcing the issue. No one is at fault, but CCP needs to find a way to keep a dialogue open about it. Not everyone will be happy no matter the outcome, but totally shutting out discussion will cause discourse to devolve into rage and abject demonization. I do not have an answer, all I have are questions and facts. I have no stake in this issue, but I hope that I helped shed some light on it for those who do. Keep up the discourse, for when we fall to pointing fingers and pitchfork rattling, nobody wins.
....I was THIS close to saying ....then the TERRORISTS win! to match the zinger of my previous post, but it just didn't feel right, so enjoy this hypothetical alternate ending. Copy and paste if needed. |
Winsaucerer
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
72
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 03:06:00 -
[36] - Quote
Zero Harpuia wrote:They want to give refunds in Aurum for the objects, but because they can just dictate the price of an object willynilly here as has been demonstrated several times throughout the last build, the Aurum the object is now worth is far more than the initial investment, which causes a loss. I'm sure you understand this, but I just wanted to lay the groundwork because I hate it when people go 'as you should already know' and leave it at that.
This is central to the very point I have been making. The change has already happened -- the AUR price of these items has gone up. As soon as these items are able to be sold for ISK, CCP starts making a loss. It doesn't matter if they refund or not, they make a loss. My central point has been this: it is not obvious that their loss will be greater if they refund now, than if they don't refund and later allow these items to be sold for ISK (which, in the spirit of the kind of game EVE is, they should allow).
I'm not sure that you actually disagree with me so much as you aren't really commenting on the arguments I've made. So I don't know if I disagree with you, either :)
|
Zero Harpuia
WarRavens Orion Empire
447
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 03:46:00 -
[37] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote:Zero Harpuia wrote:They want to give refunds in Aurum for the objects, but because they can just dictate the price of an object willynilly here as has been demonstrated several times throughout the last build, the Aurum the object is now worth is far more than the initial investment, which causes a loss. I'm sure you understand this, but I just wanted to lay the groundwork because I hate it when people go 'as you should already know' and leave it at that. This is central to the very point I have been making. The change has already happened -- the AUR price of these items has gone up. As soon as these items are able to be sold for ISK, CCP starts making a loss. It doesn't matter if they refund or not, they make a loss. My central point has been this: it is not obvious that their loss will be greater if they refund now, than if they don't refund and later allow these items to be sold for ISK (which, in the spirit of the kind of game EVE is, they should allow). I'm not sure that you actually disagree with me so much as you aren't really commenting on the arguments I've made. So I don't know if I disagree with you, either :)
True, we are talking past each other a bit. My statement isn't at odds with yours, it's just that the options as I see them are for CCP to give a current-price, stock market-like refund and have a loss, let them keep their CPOs, which causes player discontent and loss due to devaluing of the BPOs, or give original value refunds, which has a chance of causing player discontent. There is also the extra option of coming to a mutually beneficial plan after a dialogue has been opened. I do not disagree with you, I just want all four options to be looked at instead of people being for or against the two most talked of options, refund at current and don't refund period. I should have been more clear.
I can't think of a joke due to low blood sugar, so here is a reaction video of DUST Aurum purchasers to this issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=omLve_vezbA&NR=1 |
Aesiron Kor-Azor
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 07:26:00 -
[38] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote:So, I made a post the other day about the AUR refund. To put things out in the open, I would be one of those who receives millions of AUR if there's a refund. With that caveat admitting my bias out of the way, I still think there is a genuine case for CCP to do the refund. The original plan was to refund most AUR items at their current AUR values. However, this plan was cancelled at the last moment, because some of us would receive millions of AUR. The stated concern, by CCP Eterne, was that "we realized this would give a hugely unfair advantage to these people". This as a reason, however, does not fly for three reasons: 1. It seems to entail that Dust 514 is "pay to win" 2. This "huge advantage" is available to anyone with deep outside-eve pockets (should we implement an AUR cap?) 3. This "huge advantage" is available to any rich EVE players, once the economies are merged So it's not clear to me that it is a huge advantage, and if it is, then it's a problem for other reasons. Furthermore, CCP should keep in mind what people will be likely to spend their AUR on. I'm sure they have data on AUR spending habits, and I imagine a great deal of this AUR will go directly into boosters. In terms of advantage, this cannot be described as "huge". Perhaps on its own this would give a slight reason to cancel a refund, but it does not seem to me to be a particularly strong reason at all. Weighed against the considerations in favour of a refund, I do not think it is strong enough. Now, there is one important reason why CCP may wish to not reimburse the AUR -- and that is, that it may affect their revenue. I think that is a legitimate concern, as that is what fuels Dust 514 development. However, I actually think it may possibly be *worse* for CCP's revenue to not reimburse the AUR now. Worse, that is, once these BPO's are able to be sold on the ISK market. It sounds like there are a lot of these BPO's spread among the closed beta players. Most likely thousands of each BPO, or of each of the most expensive ones. Once the market opens up, players will sell these BPO's, likely at significantly less than their converted ISK value, due to the large number available and likely demand. Players will buy these BPO's with ISK instead of AUR, and CCP loses revenue from those players who would have purchased those BPO's with AUR instead. If CCP reimburses the AUR instead, then a number of people such as myself will use that AUR on boosters I wouldn't have purchased anyway, or on other items I wouldn't have purchased anyway (I don't have outside-eve deep pockets). And some of that AUR will sit dormant, unspent. That is, CCP will lose some revenue, but not the full value of the AUR in revenue. On the other hand, without a refund, they will lose some revenue from ISK sold BPO's. Of course, not everyone who purchases a BPO with ISK would have bought that with AUR instead, but the existence of these BPO's will represent a loss of revenue. Of course, there's lots of assumptions here. I, however, do not think that CCP's revenue will be obviously *worse* if they reimburse the AUR. I do think it could possibly be higher. At the very least, I think it is worth considering the possibility that a reimbursement might be their best option (or at least neutral) from an economic perspective. And finally, there's the innocent victims of this change -- those people who didn't take advantage of the early beta lower prices, who have bought suits or militia bpo's on the basis of particular fits, and now want to skill into something different with the new Uprising skills. Or those who's suits are no longer available without investing significant SP's. These people are a strong case in favour of AUR refund, particularly since some appear to be claiming to not purchase any more AUR, or at least not for the moment. Weighed against the not-so-huge advantage, and the economic considerations, I think this last point tells strongly in favour of a refund.
Thanks a lot for denying our refunds... you idiot, you just HAD to get more, you couldn't cope with the patience of waiting until a game is released, bullying a game in beta by abusing cheap pricing, thanks a lot you *******.
|
P-A-R-A-D-O-X
A-S-S-A-S-S-I-N
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 00:46:00 -
[39] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Winsaucerer wrote:So, I made a post the other day about the AUR refund. To put things out in the open, I would be one of those who receives millions of AUR if there's a refund. With that caveat admitting my bias out of the way, I still think there is a genuine case for CCP to do the refund. The original plan was to refund most AUR items at their current AUR values. However, this plan was cancelled at the last moment, because some of us would receive millions of AUR. The stated concern, by CCP Eterne, was that "we realized this would give a hugely unfair advantage to these people". This as a reason, however, does not fly for three reasons: 1. It seems to entail that Dust 514 is "pay to win" 2. This "huge advantage" is available to anyone with deep outside-eve pockets (should we implement an AUR cap?) 3. This "huge advantage" is available to any rich EVE players, once the economies are merged So it's not clear to me that it is a huge advantage, and if it is, then it's a problem for other reasons. Furthermore, CCP should keep in mind what people will be likely to spend their AUR on. I'm sure they have data on AUR spending habits, and I imagine a great deal of this AUR will go directly into boosters. In terms of advantage, this cannot be described as "huge". Perhaps on its own this would give a slight reason to cancel a refund, but it does not seem to me to be a particularly strong reason at all. Weighed against the considerations in favour of a refund, I do not think it is strong enough. Now, there is one important reason why CCP may wish to not reimburse the AUR -- and that is, that it may affect their revenue. I think that is a legitimate concern, as that is what fuels Dust 514 development. However, I actually think it may possibly be *worse* for CCP's revenue to not reimburse the AUR now. Worse, that is, once these BPO's are able to be sold on the ISK market. It sounds like there are a lot of these BPO's spread among the closed beta players. Most likely thousands of each BPO, or of each of the most expensive ones. Once the market opens up, players will sell these BPO's, likely at significantly less than their converted ISK value, due to the large number available and likely demand. Players will buy these BPO's with ISK instead of AUR, and CCP loses revenue from those players who would have purchased those BPO's with AUR instead. If CCP reimburses the AUR instead, then a number of people such as myself will use that AUR on boosters I wouldn't have purchased anyway, or on other items I wouldn't have purchased anyway (I don't have outside-eve deep pockets). And some of that AUR will sit dormant, unspent. That is, CCP will lose some revenue, but not the full value of the AUR in revenue. On the other hand, without a refund, they will lose some revenue from ISK sold BPO's. Of course, not everyone who purchases a BPO with ISK would have bought that with AUR instead, but the existence of these BPO's will represent a loss of revenue. Of course, there's lots of assumptions here. I, however, do not think that CCP's revenue will be obviously *worse* if they reimburse the AUR. I do think it could possibly be higher. At the very least, I think it is worth considering the possibility that a reimbursement might be their best option (or at least neutral) from an economic perspective. And finally, there's the innocent victims of this change -- those people who didn't take advantage of the early beta lower prices, who have bought suits or militia bpo's on the basis of particular fits, and now want to skill into something different with the new Uprising skills. Or those who's suits are no longer available without investing significant SP's. These people are a strong case in favour of AUR refund, particularly since some appear to be claiming to not purchase any more AUR, or at least not for the moment. Weighed against the not-so-huge advantage, and the economic considerations, I think this last point tells strongly in favour of a refund. They did do a refund. You just have to give up all your character progress in exchange. Perfectly fair, considering all the factors involved.
That is in no way fair... I spent over a month playing only militia to get my Proto Logi suit which was hindered with all the SP gaining restrictions... It would be unfair, to force a player to have to go through another 3+ months regaining 6.5+M SP just because what? They'd use the AUR on boosters? Well of course they would - you made SP gaining a lengthy process... Anyways - as far as I'm concerned CCP can keep the AUR & force 'us' to spend money on more - I would just like the ability to change my main character to one that better suits me - like how they've changed the rules of the game ways that sit them... |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |