Should EA Ban RMT in UO? Why or Why Not??

[Restroom Cowboy]

I'm not the one advocating that EA making an extra $3,750,000 per year, which will ensure that UO operates longer and will result in more GMs, more development, more testers and more advertising is not a good idea. But then making $375,000 is a fantastic idea. LOL.

"Professional" sellers continue selling -> "Professional" sellers win
EA takes place of "Professional" sellers -> EA Wins, Players Win

and yet, some people here continue to advocate that only "Professional" sellers should win. LOL.

Quit trying to take a stance from numbers you pulled out of your rear. Second, it almost sounds to me like you are suggesting EA create more gold to sell to the players. Do you know how stupid that really is? Do you?

Also, this whole thread is a moot point...all you are doing at this point is trolling your own thread without offering any positive input at all.

WELL DONE!

 

[HD2300]

Second, it almost sounds to me like you are suggesting EA create more gold to sell to the players.

When the rate of gold/resources entering the game remains the same, the impact remains the same. EA could either choose to supply exactly the same amount of gold that professional "sellers" where generating or if they choose to develop more ingame gold sink could even supply more gold.

80k players -> $3,750,000 per year
120k players -> $5,610,000 per year

100% of $5,610,000 is a lot of money.

 

[Coppelia]

When the rate of gold/resources entering the game remains the same, the impact remains the same. EA could either choose to supply exactly the same amount of gold that professional "sellers" where generating or if they choose to develop more ingame gold sink could even supply more gold.

80k players -> $3,750,000 per year
120k players -> $5,610,000 per year

100% of $5,610,000 is a lot of money.

Keep throwing stupid figures, you're a star!

 

[Viper09]

When the rate of gold/resources entering the game remains the same, the impact remains the same. EA could either choose to supply exactly the same amount of gold that professional "sellers" where generating or if they choose to develop more ingame gold sink could even supply more gold.

80k players -> $3,750,000 per year
120k players -> $5,610,000 per year

100% of $5,610,000 is a lot of money.

You keep throwing figures here. So I am guessing for these figures to be completely accurate you are assuming that every single player will be using this system, correct? And you assume with EA selling gold that this game will still be going on long enough for them to make a useful income of these numbers?

Where is the fun in this game if every player starts buying gold? How many people as it is buy UO gold? How many will then buy UO gold from EA if they do this and not from other sources?

It's easy to toss around numbers and say it's a good plan, but then you need to figure out how UO will function if everyone buys gold and what impact it will have on this game. In addition, how many people will actually USE this system? You can't just toss around numbers based on the assumption that 100% of subscriptions will use it.

With everyone buying gold from EA that would essentially destroy the market. The difference between 3rd parties selling gold and EA selling gold is that the 3rd parties actually obtain this gold through play such that it is already in the market. EA will just create it for a price.

 

[Zyon Rockler]

I did not vote on the poll because i'm not sure if they should or not. I would say that EA should place in game stores that allow you to enter a room or a building and then you are asked a password, that you then type in and you enter this room and it is basically a store.

I think that everything in the game should be obtainable in this way using real money because it is a profit that EA is making. This money could then go towards making the gameplay better. Plus, it would advance the game into the future. All games will allow for this at some point because of the obvious fact that they will make money.

Yes, it's kinda like a cheat or an easy button but if people are willing to pay real money then it should be up to them.

NPCs could offer training skills up to 100 or even 120 but the person would have to pay maybe $120 real money. You would have to be crazy to say no to that kind of revenue. Now, I know alot of people would say this would destroy the game but the bottom line is money. We're not gonna have a game or any improvements unless it can make money.

Plus, this type of shopping is intriquing to people. Women for example, would simply play the game to shop. They might not need the orny for $250 real money but the simple experience of buying it and being able to present it as a gift to their husband is a whole nother outlet, for money.

Look at the game now and what types of systems it has. It has a chat system, so people can play just to talk. It has a skill system, so people can do any of those things. It has a vendor system, so people can shop and buy things but this is limited to the money they have in game.

The subscription fee would be the least of what money is made. It would be the transactions of sales that would increase but because the store is not in the game other people are taking advantage of the system. So, either way, it's going to happen. The question is where should the money go? To the player or to EA, who could use it to improve the game.

 

[Coppelia]

Yes, it's kinda like a cheat or an easy button but if people are willing to pay real money then it should be up to them.

No, absolutely not. Just because some people would pay for something doesn't mean you should provide them. That's totally irresponsible. In lots of domains it's dangerous, and for an online game it's cheating. I don't care if EA gets the money or Joe Shmoe, it's still cheating.

Your idea are dreadful. It's far enough that some items you've been able to craft for 10 years on private shards are only available through the cash shop. This is not second life, this is not a card trading game.

I know that some rich people would be ready to pay a fortune to know how to play golf faster than anyone, but too bad for them it takes practice, ie time not money. So of course in online game there's a way to skip things which they decided not for them. Still not moral.

It's worrying to see all the people who seem to think that from the moment you put the money on the table, all is allowed. Oo

 

[Trebr Drab]

It surprises me that so few players are against RMT.

 

[Petra Fyde]

Don't read too much into the results of the poll. There will be a number, like myself, who didn't vote at all. I consider that what EA choose to allow or not allow is none of my business.

 

[Trebr Drab]

Don't read too much into the results of the poll. There will be a number, like myself, who didn't vote at all. I consider that what EA choose to allow or not allow is none of my business.

You're a paying customer. Of course it's your business, if you choose to have an opinion.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

It surprises me that so few players are against RMT.

I'm not really certain what that would be such a surprise.

From my standpoint, I have never bought anything from another player via RMT, but I have bought items from EA. I've never sold anything at all via RMT.

What I will say is that UO, very early on, was extremely proud that it had a conversion rate that put some small, third world countries to shame. I think that's a cool thing. Honestly, if EA were smart, they'd set up their "ebay" system where whatever item you wanted to sell was put up on a site -- and at the same time, taken out of the game world -- with full details, including your expected sale price (or heck, auction it). EA'd take a cut of the profit, the transactions would be guaranteed, everyone's happy.

Yes, the argument that there's an impetus to cheat exists. The existence of RMT doesn't preclude the idea that cheaters should be banned. They'd have to be strong on cheating so that the goods or whatever were honest transactions -- or as close as they get ("smart" cheaters don't make their cheating obvious, so I wouldn't expect they'd be caught). And they'd have to have better systems checking up on duping and preventing them from propagating.

RMT isn't the root of all evil.

 

[GarthGrey]

I think this thread has gone far enough.....err, oh wait....nevermind.

 

[NuSair]

It surprises me that so few players are against RMT.

The main thing to realize on something like this, is that only a small percentage of players who play UO actually come to this site.

As for RMT....

Anyone who says you need 100mil just to play this game so you can afford the arties.... ever hear about doing it yourself? About a year ago, I went on another shard besides my main. With the 1000gp, I was able to buy a 100% LRC suit (crappy resist)- I put it together piece by piece.

I trained and got my skill (magery/eval) upto 60'ish. Then I went to the old world dungeons and actually continued to train my skill while killing things. If you actually take time to loot the monsters, you can get a nice amount of gold.

Also, I was able to tag along on a few Mel runs, got a hair dye that I was able to sell.... anyway....

After a week of questing, training, actually PLAYING the game I was able to make my first 1 million gold check.

You don't NEED those things to 'play' the game. You don't NEED 100mil just to play the game. It is quite possible to get to that point with a little effort.

As for RMT... In a few ways I am ok with it. But mostly, I am against it. Example- I took a 5 year break from the game. When I came back, I had missed the Tokuno treasures and wanted a set of dyes. On ebay someone had a complete set of Tokuno treasures and a lot of other stuff for like $80. So, I bought it. OTOH, when gold gets to like $.35 a mil, you have to question what was done in order to amass that much gold so that it would be only worth that much.

 

[Trebr Drab]

Ra'Dian, RMT is the root of a great deal of evil in UO.

However, I think (think, mind you, at this point) that I like your idea of a official sponsored exchange site.
-The safety involved would allow players who do go for RMT to do it safely,
-UO would make a little something off of RMT, which is never going to be controlled anyways, and which would add up to something for the producer,
-And UO would get an ability to monitor things as needed,
-while the cheaters would almost certainly use other sites, they'd be the only ones using other sites (to sell), and that has a benefit to UO investigations, I would think.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

The thing is, RMT is not evil or a "root" of anything. It's simply an agreed method of exchange between two parties.

The actual RMT process is EXTERNAL to the game, all the game sees is player A giving an ingame object to player B, the very same if you're simply GIVING someone that item.

So for all the people who have a problem with RMT trades, they should be just as against any form of free giveaway (i.e. newbie giveaways).

The bad name RMT gets is not from the RMT action itself but from people who exploit the game in order to profit from RMT sales. It becomes easy to point at RMT because someone is *gasp! shock! horror!* profiting in real life from selling the items.

But RMT isn't the real problem with the game, cheating is, that's why I also support the "moderated central marketplace" concept.

 

[Trebr Drab]

...

The thing is, RMT is not evil or a "root" of anything. It's simply an agreed method of exchange between two parties.

The actual RMT process is EXTERNAL to the game, all the game sees is player A giving an ingame object to player B, the very same if you're simply GIVING someone that item.

So for all the people who have a problem with RMT trades, they should be just as against any form of free giveaway (i.e. newbie giveaways).

I have a long history of being against all give-aways, including Vet Rewards. Also, UO selling items and skills. I more against these things, actually, than I am against RMT between players, since the players "earned" the items inside the game.

The bad name RMT gets is not from the RMT action itself but from people who exploit the game in order to profit from RMT sales.

BINGO!!! And one guess what exactly is the root cause here.

It becomes easy to point at RMT because someone is *gasp! shock! horror!* profiting in real life from selling the items.

But RMT isn't the real problem with the game, cheating is, that's why I also support the "moderated central marketplace" concept.

It sounds logical. I'm leaning that way, but I don't want to be real firm on that yet because I like to think things through a little longer. For myself, I'd still be totally against it, except that I have to accept that so many players these days want it. Also, it might be a boon to UO as an old and struggling game.

There's still other problems with UO. The Powerscroll situation is unfair and a big negative. The Runic situation seems to be solved with Imbuing. Still lots of problem between having 2 clients and bugs and etc. and cheats if the problem isn't solved.

But UO is close. Can you smell it in the air? UO is close to being a damn fine offering. If they get these things right, and then do something about the art, UO could really take off. There are loads of players "looking for something else" and trying all kinds of games, even those they've played before. UO can be a solution for many.

 

[HD2300]

Honestly, if EA were smart, they'd set up their "ebay" system ... EA'd take a cut of the profit

Why would EA want to do that? A 10% cut is peanuts, when they can take it all. EA can get 100% by removing the "professional" sellers and taking their place. With new gold sinks there will be deflation, not inflation

100% of $4,000,000 per year is far far better than 10% of $4,000,000 per year

I cant believe that there are actually people here posting that EA getting $400,000/yr extra is awesome, but EA getting $4,000,000/yr extra is not good.

People are complaining about lack of content, lack of GMs, lack of advertising, but then the posting EA getting $4,000,000 extra per year is not a good thing. Geez. It is like everytime I read some posts here, its like I'm losing some IQ points

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

There are 6 pages in this thread of reasons why EA "taking 100% of the profits" won't work and you STILL haven't seemed to have read any of them and instead just continue parroting the same line over and over again.

 

[Evlar]

It is like every
time I read some posts here, its like I'm losing some IQ points

There you go. You're welcome to use it.

Oh and whilst I'm at it, I corrected your grammatical mistake of "everytime" to "every time". Must be the loss of IQ you're suffering...

 

[HD2300]

...

There are 6 pages in this thread of reasons why EA "taking 100% of the profits" won't work and you STILL haven't seemed to have read any of them and instead just continue parroting the same line over and over again.

I am sure if someone works their way through this thread, they will be able to see what makes sense and what does not, and then why people are posting things that do not make sense.

 

[Gellor]

I voted no for several reasons:
1) You keep throwing out EA using the profits for UO. I'd doubt that ANY of the profits they got from selling gold goes for UO. That is in addition to a whole lot of made up numbers. I've only bought gold once and that was to help a guild mate.

2) Magically adding gold to the economy is VERY bad... especially at a price that would stop "professional" gold sellers.

3) I'd guess most gold that "professional" gold sellers are selling was gotten through semi-legitimate means... by this, I mean they are not whole sale mass duping stuff.

This is in addition to the fact that EA would have no way to enforce such nonsense. As far as the game/servers see, one player is giving another player items (last I checked, this was legal in game) EA has no way to track what happens outside of the game (ie, I paypal someone money for gold/items).

 

[Evlar]

The biggest problem with EA and UO, is that UO is pretty much a secondary or even tertiary consideration for them. Lack of any significant promotion of the game is evidence enough of that.

If even half of the money I would imagine UO has made over the years, went back into UO itself, the game would be in a lot better shape than it is now. Clients would have been finished, polished and fully maintained. There probably would have even been a competitive 3D client.

So by all means, preach additional profit avenues for EA Games. But frankly, I doubt they'll make a jot of difference to the budgetary allowances that the developers receive for UO.

For one thing, it's clear and has been mentioned already, that the "biggie" for EA is the new Star Wars online game. Given the absorption of Mythic into BioWare, the fact that UO devs have been actively advising/working with BioWare regarding PvP element (and who knows what else...), it's pretty clear where the priorities are.

It's not uncommon for developers to multi-task on different games within a development studio. But to think that all the revenue that UO generates and could generate, would go directly back into UO, is very naïve.

 

[Trebr Drab]

The new Star Wars game is going to struggle. It's another level grind like all the others, and most gamers are just tired of that.

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

When the rate of gold/resources entering the game remains the same, the impact remains the same. EA could either choose to supply exactly the same amount of gold that professional "sellers" where generating or if they choose to develop more ingame gold sink could even supply more gold.

80k players -> $3,750,000 per year
120k players -> $5,610,000 per year

100% of $5,610,000 is a lot of money.

Keep pulling numbers out of your bum.

 

[Evlar]

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

lol...nice pic!

 

[HD2300]

2) Magically adding gold to the economy is VERY bad... especially at a price that would stop "professional" gold sellers.

Not true. EA could sell gold at $2 or $3 a million because

1. Adding gold sinks (like selling new rares on vendors) will cause deflation, not inflation.
2. EA wont have "professional" sellers undercutting them if "professional" sellers are removed from the game.

You say it cant be stopped. $6,000,000 extra revenue per year is a lot of incentive for stopping it. You could have report a "professional" seller and help UO program, where you get rare deco or reward if you report a "professional" seller. You can monitor movements of gold.

I voted no for several reasons:
1) That is in addition to a whole lot of made up numbers.

From RMT research paper at http://virtual-economy.org/blog/how_big_is_the_rmt_market_anyw

The recent white paper on Station Exchange (SE) also sheds some light into the secondary market MMOG RMT volume. The sanctioned RMT of Everquest II virtual property in Station Exchange reached USD 1.87M during one year. A total of about 40,000 users were registered on the two servers in which RMT was sanctioned. The introduction of Station Exchange had very little or no effect on unsanctioned RMT on other servers. It might be fair to say that RMT is not very much more likely to occur on the sanctioned server. I assume that on the average one Everquest II user uses about as much money on RMT as any other MMOG user. If the reported USD 1.87M is as large a part of the total RMT as the 40,000 users are of the total MMOG user base, we can form an estimate for the grand total worldwide secondary market. According to Bruce Woodcock, MMOGs had about 12.5M users in June 2006, so the estimate of the secondary market total RMT is about USD 585M. The 12.5M users include only paying users of MMOGs, i.e. users with a monthly subscription or similar.

1.87M/40,000 = Average subscription account in EQ2 spends $46.75 per year.

RMT sales are not just gold. It is gold, resources, item.

If UO has 100,000 subscription accounts assuming "on the average one Everquest II user uses about as much money on RMT as any other MMOG user", then
Secondary RMT sales per year = $4,675,000 / year

If UO has 120,000 subscription accounts...
Secondary RMT sales per year = $5,610,000 / year

Also the $46.75 per sub per year is lower than the true amount, as what was measured was sanctioned commission based RMT.

 

[PASmountaindew]

In my opinion this poll and thread is kind of pointless. RL cash transactions are already against the rules according to EA so there is no reason to ask if they should be banned or not because they are effectively already banned.

Ultima Online Service Rules of Conduct

While you are a member of the Ultima Online service, you must abide by the following rules.

IF YOU BREAK ANY OF THESE RULES, YOUR ULTIMA ONLINE ACCOUNT, AND YOUR RIGHT TO USE THE ULTIMA ONLINE SERVICE, MAY BE TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY BY ELECTRONIC ARTS. IF THIS HAPPENS, YOU WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY REFUND OF ANY AMOUNTS PAID BY YOU TO USE THE ULTIMA ONLINE SERVICE AND YOU WILL FORFEIT ALL OF YOUR UNUSED ACCESS TIME.


Rule #8 With the exception of the sale of in-game items for in-game items or services,

I take this to mean gold for items or items for gold. NOT RL cash because that is not ingame

you may not market, promote or advertise anything, or make any other form of solicitation (including pyramid schemes and chain letters) through the Ultima Online service or Ultima Online web site.

Rule #13 You may not use the Ultima Online service or Ultima Online web site for any activities other than those permitted within the game world.

The keyword here is WITHIN and once again since RL cash is not within the game world than all transactions with other players for RL cash would be a violation of the Rules of Conduct.

UO Terms of Service


Rights and Responsibilities

(c) Rights. You acknowledge and agree that all characters created, and items acquired and developed as a result of game play are part of the Software and Service and are the sole property of Electronic Arts. You acknowledge that: (i) the Software and the Service permit access to Content that is protected by copyrights, trademarks, and other proprietary rights owned by Electronic Arts or Content Providers (collectively, "Rights"), and (ii) these Rights are valid and protected in all media existing now or later developed, and (iii) except as is explicitly provided otherwise, your use of Content shall be governed by the copyright laws of the United States and other applicable laws. You agree that you may upload or otherwise transmit on or through the Service only Content that is not subject to any Rights, or Content in which any holder of Rights has given express authorization for distribution on the Service. By submitting Content to any area on the Service, you automatically grant (or you warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted) to Electronic Arts the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed for the full term including any renewal term of any Rights that may exist in such Content.

It also states basically that everything ingame is covered by trademarks and copyrights so effectively selling ingame items for RL cash would be the same as illegally downloading a music CD and burning it and then selling them to people. You don't own the content on the disc but you are selling it.

 

[Petra Fyde]

In my opinion this poll and thread is kind of pointless. RL cash transactions are already against the rules according to EA so there is no reason to ask if they should be banned or not because they are effectively already banned.

A very valid point, and I think a conversation-stopper, so let's stop it.