Yea so I could actually set say a piece of armor to 175m or say 500 store credits. Maybe mythic does a buy back for store tokens. Every 3=1 I don't know how something like that would even legally work. Do taxes need to be paid etc etc. so maybe just better to add a way to spend the store gold in game on items. So if say Player A doesn't trust buying gold from a player he can just buy from UO to spend. Seems kind of win win that way. Then the player who sold it gets the tokens in his/her balance. Seems like a lot of work for a team that gave us dinosaurs tho
Something like you suggest could create tax consequences for players and EA/Broadsword, as well as impose financial reporting and backup tax withholding obligations for EA/Broadsword.
Yepp.. all kinds of paperwork, headaches and hassles.
We already have "real-money balances" in game. At prestent they are master account bound.
I see no reasonable need for sovereigns to be transferrable.
The thought was that it would add a new dimension to buying and selling. More incentive for people to buy the sovereigns. I didn't think that trading in for real money would work. I was just asking what downfalls it would have if implemented. Taxes alone made me say nope..but I was curious.
Cause you can't legally purchase gold with real money, but you can sovereign.
That's my concern as well. As an accountant who works on hedge funds and private equity groups, I've seen how vicious the IRS and/or SEC can be. No reason to give regulators any reason to see a red flag and consider looking into things. Receiving questions about how transactions between players from within game may be causing taxable events and what is being done to track them is exactly the type of thing that would send this fragile game to the bricks for good.
Well what the In game store brought code in for I think is the ability to show sovereigns on an account. I wonder how hard it would be for me to say purchase items from a player with them. Now I don't think it's smart to be able to convert that to real life $ however it make everything Attainable in game without ever spending your own money. And they can start adding game items for real money that people would normally complain about because it's "game breaking" not being Attainable without real money arguments out of the equation.
That's what I was expecting when the "In-game store" was in concept..... it's not too late, but that also lead me to believe it was possible UO was heading to a F2P model (it' not too late for that either...), I do not want F2P to happen.
UO is going ftp. it was announced back in september on facebook. endless trial account, you still have to pay the sub if you want a house.
Yea, I know, I just wasn't sure if they had a change of plans since then.... it'll be good for a while at least. (hopefully)
Do you have proof of this? link, screenshot, anything?
It would also cause a slew of legal ramifications as well... once they condone RMT in game, you've now a vest stake. Right now all those pixels are EA's property, you're paying for the privilege of accessing and playing with them. Allow you to treat them as a commodity where it can have fiscal ramifications on you outside the game, endorsed and condoned by EA then they take on a large amount of risk and liability if something happens.
Please explain how letting players transfer sovs (that are already ingame) between each other create any "fiscal ramifications" or additional "risk and liability if something happens"?
That was long before when Smoot said it was posted on facebook though.
man I had a very hard time reading that without loling.
unlimited trial account basically. if you want a house or vet rewards youll still have to sub.
NPE = New Player Experience.
OK, thanks for the link. How did you find this?
the molds page is just one of about 20 or so random pages "followed" on my facebook site. kinda nerdy stuff overall once in a while have a really funny or interesting one.
Smoot's post yesterday about a Facebook post made me curious too and I ended up finding the same podcast shortly before he posted the link. I found it because I got to thinking about what Mesanna might have been involved with around September and wondering if she might have shared upcoming plans for UO with the LLTS guild (aka The Syndicate) at their annual conference (Syndcon). So I searched on the terms "Syndcon" and "Bonnie Armstrong" and that was how I found a link to the same podcast Smoot mentioned. (The Syndicate - Articles and http://www.llts.org/Articles/Articles/163_podcast.php )
Just stick with the sovereigns. ALL sovereigns originate with Origin for real $, so even IF there is a resell market, Origin still got their money first. No way Origin loses money if 3rd party sites resell something at a lower price than it was bought from origin for.
Well they will if say I am looking to buy them and can get them cheaper from a 3rd party. It's not inflating the economy persay, but once there's a ton in the system now it's just shuffling around rather than increasing profit. I was just trying to spit ball ways to increase cash flow to maybe get better server or more Devs. Something to get the game fixed. It would be an ideal intro system but after 3 years or so there would be no need for the origin site. Unless of course they added better items to the store to gobble up sovereigns out of the economy.
Interesting links, thank you for sharing.
I still haven't seen a reasonable explanation for why Sovereigns should be transferable.
It doesn't/wouldn't matter how many times a sovereign changes hands in game or what it was traded for, Origin got its money. Whether they get it all now or later doesn't really matter, they got paid. So long as the only way to create a sovereign is to buy one with real money on the origin store, it shouldn't make any difference how players trade them ingame after the fact.
Right now the only way to convert real cash into gold is to buy it on the black market or purchase items from the ingame store and then try to sell them for gold. Making sovereigns transferable cuts out the middle man in either of those scenarios with absolutely no risk to Origin/EA/Broadsword (provided its coded correctly, but we already have a digital account transfer system for gold). Trading sovereigns shouldn't be any different from trading items or gold... once they are in game they are just another digital currency.
right, from what they said it sounds like just the same restrictions as trial accounts have now, or at least the major ones like housing. but this would now just be a "normal" account. not a subbed account. but its not worth guessing until it goes live.
yes, that would be good for you but bad for broadsword. for broadsword, its better if alot of people have those sovereigns but dont use them, rather than transferring them to players who would have otherwise bought more sovereigns.
You have it backwards... how many MORE sovereigns would get bought if you could use them outside of just the origin store items.
