Free accounts too restrictive

[imported_Gracie Nito]

<blockquote><hr>

I was confused. Aren't free accounts restricted to TC3 only? Are we talking about after the merge and free accounts will be allowed within the big city? Why not continue to restrict them to TC3. I have some thoughts.

Since TC3 is not participating in the buying and selling of simoleans in real life, and TC3 sims will be unable to move out of TC3, why not let the free account be restricted to TC3 after the merge. They would be able to skill, make money, own lots, experience every bit of what the game would be like...plus test out new things! TC3 is an adequate showing of what the game is like, more adequate then sticking them in EAland with nothing to do, nothing to own and thinking, this is boring...why would I want to pay for this. Sure, they might not run into a lot of people because most of us might be playing within EAland at that time, but that is one of the teasers.... Pay to join everyone in EAland where the fun is at. Who knows, TC3 might still stay nice and populated. I lived in TC for a long time as my main city and enjoyed it.

If TC3 needs to stay open for experienced players to test bugs, and not overpopulated by newbies, maybe the devs can come up with a NewbieLand.... Free accounts can have the ability to make money, skill, no bonus, unable to buy or sell simoleans. When they decide they want to pay to play, they can move their sim to EALand with the same mechanism we move our sims with from city to city. Of course, everything would be wiped upon departure from Newbieland...age and even skill points. This would lower free account abuse from paying customers too. No paying player would have any advantage of creating a sim for a newbie world.

[/ QUOTE ]


TC3 sims will eventually be allowed to purchase simoleans from EA. They will not have the cash out feature. However, simoleans have been sold on the blackmarket for years and I am sure this will continue to happen in TC3. The simolean farms will still be in TC3 making money and selling it on the black market.

From what I am reading, the only solution the developers have been able to come up with is to not allow free accounts to produce simoleans in the economy at all. Apparently, they have no way of combatting botters or simolean farmers.

The idea of a free account is to give new players a taste of the game. Although, it doesn't sound like they will have much of a taste at all at this point. With no way to play the economy game in TC3, they will be left to sit around playing a game of chess or whatever kind of board game they can create with our current list of objects and just visiting or chatting with other players.

They will be able to purchase simoleans to buy things. The limited merchandise in game will not hold their attention for long.

Another aspect of the free accounts is the "visitor" feature. You can have friends from anywhere sign up for a free account and they can come visit you while you are playing even if they don't want to play the game themselves. So limiting free accounts to another server would defeat the purpose of sigining up for a visitor account.

Before EALand can be opened to free accounts, there will need to be more things in game for them to do besides play TSO or they won't stick around long enough to even want to subscribe and play the economy game.

 

[Guest]

It's not that simple. They are wiping the money yes but, writing a program that does a simolean delete every so often is extra work that could be avoided. Not to mention like Lee asked, how could this be exploited? By this way of wiping every so often, the exploitation possibilities are astronomical. It would be just as bad as it is now.

And you are still blaming the current team for the past actions of another team. We can't keep doing this. The current team is not the team that once was. To sit here and keep judging them as if they made all the mistakes of past when they weren't around is just insane. Like Jackiee TC said in another post:

<blockquote><hr>

Oy, Its sort of silly to base the current progress of the current team, on the previous progress of no team.

I hope where you work, they don't base your value as an employee on work that was done before you got there.


[/ QUOTE ]

 

[imported_LFancey]

the numbers would pale in comparison.


Yes.

 

[imported_LFancey]

For a free player....What is the answer?

I would think you have several answers...

1. Once you subscribe you can X, Y, Z just like us.
2. They are not done yet. Free accounts will have more stuff to do.
3. Have you tried making your own content and selling it as a way to play?

Just random thoughts in the morning.

Lee

 

[imported_LFancey]

I know its 1 AM but more food for thought

----BUT wiping their simoleans every so often so they would need to start over?

Ok so how would this affect the subscribing customer?

Lee

 

[imported_LFancey]

Do do be so brane

 

[imported_LFancey]

Free accounts will be restricted to TC3.

How might say the black market affect you as a player by allowing it to be free? (Remeber things of value will be exploited.)

Lee

 

[imported_LFancey]

---All they have to do is crawl into the system and wipe the free accounts every week, every other week, or every month...however often they choose to do it..

What would happen to the money that this person gave to you for say food, bathroom services, objects, custom content?

Lee

 

[imported_LFancey]

---am sure this will continue to happen in TC3

Right! I wished I had read this before I asked the question on this one.


--From what I am reading, the only solution the developers have been able to come up with is to not allow free accounts to produce simoleans in the economy at all. Apparently, they have no way of combatting botters or simolean farmers.

At present yes. Also as I have stated time and time again, "We are not done."

Lee

 

[imported_Qute Pi]

<blockquote><hr>

For a free player....What is the answer?

I would think you have several answers...

1. Once you subscribe you can X, Y, Z just like us.
2. They are not done yet. Free accounts will have more stuff to do.
3. Have you tried making your own content and selling it as a way to play?

Just random thoughts in the morning.

Lee

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a major part of the game addiction is getting involved in an activity and not wanting to stop.
If they can't get involved without subscribing, then they can't get addicted enough to want to subscribe.
I can watch people all day doing something, but I don't know if I will truly enjoy it unless I try it. That still isn't enough reason for me to subscribe.

Are their limits that can be placed such as allowing a free player to create and upload ony 1 item to sell. So they can see the process for themselves? And not just content but other features. What about size 1 properties without the upgrade feature? Or is that too difficult to implement at this point in the development? Just anything that could make a free player say...I want to keep doing this! I want to experience more! I just don't think what they will currently have is enough to get them to subscribe and the one thing we need; more subscribers.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

* Disabling the transaction (give money and transfer) feature on the UI, would control inventory muling, transferring free money and scamming. (tip jars should also be disabled, on free trial accounts)

* Property ownership limits (size, location &amp; option limits to what they can do with a property) would stop property muling, neighborhood pumping.

[/ QUOTE ]

From some of the things Maxis Kyle said about back end tinkering for the hard-core setup of Dragon's Cove, I *did* think that tweaking/blocking part of the User Interface would meet the KIS criteria.

Is it not simple to lock up portions of the User Interface until someone subscribes?

I did not think this would be complicated, because every free download I have ever gotten, has had areas that would only be accessable once I subscribe...then they give me a code that unlocks it all.

Locking up (greying out, making unaccessable) the majority of property options, including lot expansions, neighborhood options, lot naming and descriptions, so that someone could build a little home on a size one lot, does not seem to be exploitable, except for the threat to rare properties. And it was Greg who first suggested that there be a special type of lot for Free players....so I thought it was within the Keep It Simple framework.

As to a mini-catalog of items that Trial players could buy from MOMI....we already have that....it is what our buy catalogs looked like, until the last update.

It seems to me that this would be functional for both earned money and purchased money, and since the items are all low level, not really exploitable...just making sure that tip jars, job objects and such were not in the mini-catalog.

It seems to me the simplest change to stifle exploitation of Free accounts is to disable the ability to trade or give money.....so even if money is gained, it can not be passed on to another avatar. No trade interaction on the UI, no access to tip jars, only being able to purchase items from MOMI, means that even if a multitude of accounts are created, they can not be used to funnel money to a single account or pool it to sell (since it could not be transfered to purchaser).

With these two interfaces (interactions and property) partially disabled, then a Free player could work job objects, job tracks, build a house, skill and visit anywhere....and not be exploitable.....that I can see, anyway.

How difficult would the coding on this be, Lee? And if it is too complex....what would constitute *simple*?

 

[Guest]

Seems to me there are several different things being discussed here but not with the same objective in mind:

1. free " traditionally known as trial" accounts to entice new players to subscribe
2. Free "pay as you go" accounts - similar to SL where you don't have to be a fully paid up subscriber to participate in and play the game.

The restrictions set for the first option may help entire new players and prevent exploiters making full use of the free account option, but they may be unlikely to suit those choosing option 2 - casual players who do not want to pay a full time premium to play.

Maybe EA should be looking at 3 levels of subscription - the genuine free trial for new players to check out the game, a pay as you go subscription and a fully paid up membership allowing total access to the game?

I'm not entirely sure how a "pay as you go" scheme could work for TSO, or rather how this could be implemented so that people are interested in choosing this option and are able to participate in gameplay without it being majorly open to exploitation.

IMHO a free trial should be just enough to entice someone to start paying - they shouldn't need to learn the entire game in that time, just see enough to get hooked and want to learn more (and therefore pay more)

Free trial

Available for a short period like 3 days.
Turn off "money" for free trials so that they can go and try out jobs, pizza, money objects but aren't able to earn money or receive money via trade.
Basic lot - non tradeable, non moveable, non sellable, limited access to build as a sample. Lot reverts to EA when the 3 days is up unless further subscription made.
No ability to trade inventory items or make CC.

I highly doubt that any of the above would be of much interest to casual players that don't want to pay full subscription but do want to play the game for longer then 3 days.

Polly

 

[imported_Gracie Nito]

In fact. Having free accounts restricted to a mini catalog of MOMI items to purchase they would get to experience the gouging that MOMI does with catalogs in comparison to what subsribers get to pay at stores.

Paying twice as much for everything would entice me to subscribe.

If all the money earned by a free account is drained directly out of the economy by MOMI systems and cannot be traded to a subscriber then their ability to earn money by playing the game has no affect on the economy.

How difficult is it to turn off interaction access of a free account player? You mentioned they will not be able to interact with money objects to make money. Why not just change the objects they would use to spend money. If the free account cannot deposit money in my store, a McDonald's kiosk, a pinball machine, etc. then they would have to spend in the MOMI catalog, for their own food, for hiring a maid, for building and decorating their tiny abode.



I thought EALand would be about games. Not a virtual world to just spend money in like SL. While some may not like the skill game or money game, it is the only game in town right now. I'd hate to see the only game killed while we wait for these new games to appear some time in the future. EALand carries the same brand as EAgames. I thought the demographic we are seeking is gamers.
Is this wrong?

 

[GregK]

This is an interesting thread; great input.

I do want to re-enforce what Polly is saying:

Free Play or EA-Land Basic subscription is <u>not</u> the same thing as a TSO Free Trial.

The TSO Free Trial has been the source of exploits. We are removing the current 14 Free Trial as soon as we can. It will be replaced by ... &lt;looking for ideas&gt;. This is the "free sample" or marketing.

The EA-Land Basic account requires no upfront payment but also has a limited set of entitlements. It is a permanent entitlement (unless banned). As of right now those entitlements do not include access to the TSO game proper. That is these players will not be able to play the motive-skill-simolean game unless they are participating in a free trial or purchase access. Key entitlements being discussed for the basic level are: 1 avatar and access to EA-Land lots only (currently 'borrowing' TSO residential lots for this purpose).

Regards,
gk

 

[imported_DutchAmerica]

Oh boy, drain/wipe money from freebie accounts periodically?

Can you imagine the uproar especially if they 'bought' the simoleans?

 

[Guest]

Ok...so this is what I understand we are discussing then: 3 levels or types of accounts.

1. Full subscription. All access and full entitlements, $9.99 per month.
   
2. "EA-Land Basic account", (no monthly payment? or smaller monthly payment?)
   <blockquote>a. One (1) avatar
   b. Can only enter and play on motive-free lots.
   c. Ability to purchase simoleans for real cash....but.....do what with them?
   *Home ownership...of some kind?
   *Shop for regular items, custom content?
   *Own pets?
   d. No time limit.
   e. Can not participate to earn or sell simoleans...real cash only.
   f. Must be made unexploitable. </blockquote>
3. Trial subscriptions. (To be decided)
   <blockquote>a. Short time limit or open ended?
   b. Access
   *Limited actions? (example: just skill, chat or work)
   or
   *Unlimited action, but limited scope? (example: gain 1 or 2
   skills, buy a few items, earn limited money, build small house, do a few
   levels of job track, etc.)
   c. entitlements:
   * Should they have the ability to do or create things that would carry
   over into subscription?
   * Should they be able to earn and/or sell back money? Or real life cash?
   * How many avatars could they experiment with?
   * Access to creating Custom Content?
   d. Must be made unexploitable.</blockquote>

 

[calvinscreeksim]

I think the biggest exploitable feature of the trials before this new system was put in was the lazy [censored] heads that would stock up on 10+ trials, afk all day only to ride their ego highs by getting on the top 100 and assuming they are king of the castle.

why not just allow trials/basic accounts to enter a lot of any kind, and have the setup behind the creation of the accounts and not allow visitor bonus?....that way the newbs can see everything that is out there, but the sellers (no need to guess who those ones are) are not able to exploit the visitor bonus.

keeping in mind that the trials would not be able to create cc, do job objects, ect.

 

[Guest]

just my thoughts on this subject

I don't see a reason why a free player should own a lot, but I do think they should be allowed to roomie (possibly limited, maybe boot them out with maintenance every morning) so they can get the feel of living in one. Hosting is fun for many, so give them the opportunity to find out, it would be more of an incentive to subscribe if they enjoy it and don't want the hastles of being booted every day.

I also think they should be able to skill but it too should be limited. I would give no locks, let them skill their 10 and any more would decay, this too, I think would be an incentive to become a subscriber. Without gaining something they would risk losing, they don't gain the incentive either.

I do not think they should be limited to no needs lots, they should be able to go anywhere so that they can see what is possible to do in the game. By visiting a variety of lots they will see the homes that are possible and if they are the builder types, it will be an incentive to become a subscriber so that they can build their own place.

The best way to stop the free trial abuse would be to not allow current subscribers to sign up for them to start with. Go by credit card numbers as well as name and address, not just different email addresses. Otherwise you will still have old subscribers creating freebie accounts no matter what you do. Make it easy for present subscribers to purchase another account, but impossible to use the free ones.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Key entitlements being discussed for the basic level are: 1 avatar and access to EA-Land lots only (currently 'borrowing' TSO residential lots for this purpose).

[/ QUOTE ]

I started thinking this a few months ago, but it really seems like the old TSO section of EA-Land is going to be less like a game and more like a place for people to go play house with their avatar in between playing other EA games. Perhaps it would be fairer to say the entire game is being 'borrowed' for this purpose.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

just my thoughts on this subject

<u>I don't see a reason why a free player should own a lot, but I do think they should be allowed to roomie (possibly limited, maybe boot them out with maintenance every morning) so they can get the feel of living in one.</u> Hosting is fun for many, so give them the opportunity to find out, it would be more of an incentive to subscribe if they enjoy it and don't want the hastles of being booted every day.

I also think they should be able to skill but it too should be limited. I would give no locks, let them skill their 10 and any more would decay, this too, I think would be an incentive to become a subscriber. Without gaining something they would risk losing, they don't gain the incentive either.

I do not think they should be limited to no needs lots, they should be able to go anywhere so that they can see what is possible to do in the game. By visiting a variety of lots they will see the homes that are possible and if they are the builder types, it will be an incentive to become a subscriber so that they can build their own place.

The best way to stop the free trial abuse would be to not allow current subscribers to sign up for them to start with. Go by credit card numbers as well as name and address, not just different email addresses. Otherwise you will still have old subscribers creating freebie accounts no matter what you do. Make it easy for present subscribers to purchase another account, but impossible to use the free ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
Allowing free accounts to roomie opens up the possible exploit of lot upgrades - get 7 free accounts for roomies in order to save the 'no roomie' penalty when upsizing.
This also opens up the possibility of a free roomie becoming the owner, should the original owner leave the lot.

 

[Guest]

I don't see a problem with that either, the cost to upgrade to a size 8 is outrageous with the "economy" of today, and until they lower building costs it wouldn't matter. Plus, many of us have always used the services of homeless sims to upgrade, even with 7 roomies it costs a fortune.

IF they lower them, then change how the upgrading works or something, I don't know. I just think all new players should be able to have the experience of actually living in a house and hosting to give them more of an incentive to subscribe.

 

[imported_Phoenix_Rising]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Key entitlements being discussed for the basic level are: 1 avatar and access to EA-Land lots only (currently 'borrowing' TSO residential lots for this purpose).

[/ QUOTE ]

I started thinking this a few months ago, but it really seems like the old TSO section of EA-Land is going to be less like a game and more like a place for people to go play house with their avatar in between playing other EA games. Perhaps it would be fairer to say the entire game is being 'borrowed' for this purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's putting it lightly, actually.

 

[PB Three]

@ Jackiee

I don't entirely agree, companies are for making money, yes; but they should care about their customers more than what is simply going to be to their advantage. Customers are humans, just like them.

I have never respected 100% self-serving business people, and probably never will. I'm compassionate about others, so why not corporations? It simply doesen't make sense to me.

Just my 2 cents.


PB Three

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

@ Jackiee

I don't entirely agree, companies are for making money, yes; but they should care about their customers more than what is simply going to be to their advantage. Customers are humans, just like them.

I have never respected 100% self-serving business people, and probably never will. I'm compassionate about others, so why not corporations? It simply doesen't make sense to me.

Just my 2 cents.


PB Three

[/ QUOTE ]

PB I agree.
But what should be and what is... are different. I've worked for large corporations in my life. I know the mentality of it. Individual workers may care for the people they effect. But the corporation as a whole cares for the bottom line. Always. Even when a corporation makes a donation to a charity it's for the recognition and the tax deductible.

 

[imported_Phoenix_Rising]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

@ Jackiee

I don't entirely agree, companies are for making money, yes; but they should care about their customers more than what is simply going to be to their advantage. Customers are humans, just like them.

I have never respected 100% self-serving business people, and probably never will. I'm compassionate about others, so why not corporations? It simply doesen't make sense to me.

Just my 2 cents.


PB Three

[/ QUOTE ]

PB I agree.
But what should be and what is... are different. I've worked for large corporations in my life. I know the mentality of it. Individual workers may care for the people they effect. But the corporation as a whole cares for the bottom line. Always. Even when a corporation makes a donation to a charity it's for the recognition and the tax deductible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Even when you may not think employers are sugarcoating things, they are. They're just doing it well.

That said, EA-Land is going to go in the direction of sales. Cash-In will bring them an enormous amount of profit. EA-Land is going to be a new game, inevitably, but with the attachment of the player-base (or what's left of) The Sims Online. EA-Land released on its own may not have been worth the development or money, but with an already decent following population and sales wise, they must've thought to give it a go. Deep down, do I respect the morality of it all? No. Do I respect the financial standpoint? Indeed.

EA-Land, with other games merged into it, will become like Playstation's "Home" (I believe that is the title), Second Life, as well as There.com. All these 'worlds' have lived to display a prime example of the new way to make money from a game company's perspective. Do you really blame EA for jumping on the bandwagon? I don't, though I will miss TSO and what it could have been, had it been released properly. But, alas, we cannot dwell on could've should've would've. What we have now just "is" and we can take it or leave it. I'm not going to be fooled one bit by the company, because I can see their intent, however I will still be here to play and give my opinions. They can change the game around, but they can't get rid of me. Haha!

 

[PB Three]

...I was actually expecting to be flamed... I'm glad I wasn't, though lol

Anyway; I agree there, when they make a donation, it's for their advantage only.
Say that a corp makes a $10 million donation to a charity, the're probably expecting to make at least $12.5 million in extra sales and publicity. While it may help they charity and those who it supports, the real bonus actually goes to the donator.

It's wrong, but nothing can be done unless some corporation acts as a model and forces others to do so as well to keep pace. That's my goal: start a company, lead it to the corp size and actually 'care' for the customers/employees beyond what is simply to their advantage.

That, if it works, would probably lead to serious competition for customer loyalty and would quite likely raise customer expectations of other businesses and hence: change.

Die-hard idealist,

PB Three

 

[imported_Phoenix_Rising]

<blockquote><hr>

Die-hard idealist

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey hey, it's the only way. YOU have got to be the change. My favorite personal quote as of this moment is: "I may be nothing new, but I'd rather be something rather than nothing" -- it is so true on so many levels. Just LIVE.

[/end hippie excursion]

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

...I was actually expecting to be flamed... I'm glad I wasn't, though lol

Anyway; I agree there, when they make a donation, it's for their advantage only.
Say that a corp makes a $10 million donation to a charity, the're probably expecting to make at least $12.5 million in extra sales and publicity. While it may help they charity and those who it supports, the real bonus actually goes to the donator.

It's wrong, but nothing can be done unless some corporation acts as a model and forces others to do so as well to keep pace. That's my goal: start a company, lead it to the corp size and actually 'care' for the customers/employees beyond what is simply to their advantage.

That, if it works, would probably lead to serious competition for customer loyalty and would quite likely raise customer expectations of other businesses and hence: change.

Die-hard idealist,

PB Three

[/ QUOTE ]
Clear up a little confusion for me.
If the corporation makes a 10mil donation to charity, isn't the charity gaining some benefit?
Sure, the corporation may have the intent of gaining from their largess, thereby making it less noble than they would like you to think - but the charity STILL has the money. Everybody involved gains.
It doesn't seem to me to be a horrible thing.

 

[Guest]

I'm even more confused ....... interesting discussion about corporations and all, but exactly what has this got to do with ideas for making free accounts interesting enough to be playable without being open to too much exploit?

Maybe you guys would like to take this discussion to a new thread so as not to take this one too far off topic?

Polly

 

[PB Three]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

...I was actually expecting to be flamed... I'm glad I wasn't, though lol

Anyway; I agree there, when they make a donation, it's for their advantage only.
Say that a corp makes a $10 million donation to a charity, the're probably expecting to make at least $12.5 million in extra sales and publicity. While it may help they charity and those who it supports, the real bonus actually goes to the donator.

It's wrong, but nothing can be done unless some corporation acts as a model and forces others to do so as well to keep pace. That's my goal: start a company, lead it to the corp size and actually 'care' for the customers/employees beyond what is simply to their advantage.

That, if it works, would probably lead to serious competition for customer loyalty and would quite likely raise customer expectations of other businesses and hence: change.

Die-hard idealist,

PB Three

[/ QUOTE ]
Clear up a little confusion for me.
If the corporation makes a 10mil donation to charity, isn't the charity gaining some benefit?
Sure, the corporation may have the intent of gaining from their largess, thereby making it less noble than they would like you to think - but the charity STILL has the money. Everybody involved gains.
It doesn't seem to me to be a horrible thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did mention that it may help the charity. (I bolded the text in question.)
Donating to charity is one of the better ways of earning respect and money, I'll admit. (Kinda repeating here, I know) It helps them, but also the people that are helped by the charity.
Heck of alot better than simply making products that people simply can't resist/do without. That, IMHO is taking too much advantage of the consumers unless they give back more than just a product in return for the money.

Example: if a copy of a game is sold to the wholesaler with a $1/each, perhaps they could spend even just a couple cents out of a dollar on more than just expanding.


P.S. I can't understand the motivation to make more money than one needs, a corp could keep the stockholders and all happy by simply making 'enough' profit once you have an excess. In TSO I like to have as much money as I *need* at the time, not however much I can *get*.

@ Polly, sure thing. We are already FAR off topic. LOL I'll start a specific discussion on this later.

PB Three

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

...I was actually expecting to be flamed... I'm glad I wasn't, though lol

Anyway; I agree there, when they make a donation, it's for their advantage only.
Say that a corp makes a $10 million donation to a charity, the're probably expecting to make at least $12.5 million in extra sales and publicity. While it may help they charity and those who it supports, the real bonus actually goes to the donator.

It's wrong, but nothing can be done unless some corporation acts as a model and forces others to do so as well to keep pace. That's my goal: start a company, lead it to the corp size and actually 'care' for the customers/employees beyond what is simply to their advantage.

That, if it works, would probably lead to serious competition for customer loyalty and would quite likely raise customer expectations of other businesses and hence: change.

Die-hard idealist,

PB Three

[/ QUOTE ]
Clear up a little confusion for me.
If the corporation makes a 10mil donation to charity, isn't the charity gaining some benefit?
Sure, the corporation may have the intent of gaining from their largess, thereby making it less noble than they would like you to think - but the charity STILL has the money. Everybody involved gains.
It doesn't seem to me to be a horrible thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did mention that it may help the charity. (I bolded the text in question.)
Donating to charity is one of the better ways of earning respect and money, I'll admit. (Kinda repeating here, I know) It helps them, but also the people that are helped by the charity.
Heck of alot better than simply making products that people simply can't resist/do without. That, IMHO is taking too much advantage of the consumers unless they give back more than just a product in return for the money.

Example: if a copy of a game is sold to the wholesaler with a $1/each, perhaps they could spend even just a couple cents out of a dollar on more than just expanding.


P.S. I can't understand the motivation to make more money than one needs, a corp could keep the stockholders and all happy by simply making 'enough' profit once you have an excess. In TSO I like to have as much money as I *need* at the time, not however much I can *get*.

@ Polly, sure thing. We are already FAR off topic. LOL I'll start a specific discussion on this later.

PB Three

[/ QUOTE ]
My reference is to the "when they make a donation, it's for their advantage only." Surely not, for there is a clear advantage for the charity.

And: "While it may help they charity and those who it supports, the real bonus actually goes to the donator." To suggest that the 10 mil collected by the charity is less meaningful than the 'projected' gains (the real bonus) by the corporation, is.... well... let's just say - I doubt the charity would agree.

Followed by; "It's wrong."
I don't see how.

 

[Guest]

making free accounts interesting enough to be playable without being open to too much exploit?

Lee said that BV will be brought into EALand as a separate city. Why not have the free accounts be created in BV? And have BV be restricted to EA selling Simoleans but not buying them back? I don't think people will be allowed to move out of BV so they cannot take their items or money out of the city.