It's time for GGG to take back reigns of trade for the sake of the game

"

muzein написал:

If they're motivated to spend for gear, why would they not be motivated to spend for cosmetics--especially if those cosmetics increase the 'fun' of the game (which we can assume was the motivation behind RMT)?

"

muzein написал:

"

DarthSki44 написал:

Well that's an interesting argument considering you cannot purchase gear or currency from GGG to begin with. Its false equivalence because its not a direct option. No one is claiming that.

...

"

DarthSki44 написал:

"

la_blue_girl написал:

Player X got a family and very little time to play. 10-15 bucks to get a nice T16 build going every 4 months sounds very appealing at that point to me. And why would this person waste money on MTX when they can do this instead? So it's literally eating into GGGs own profits.

$30 for a battle pass, or $30 for enough divines to allow you to play whatever you want and gear up.

My response was in the context that you both proposed: A player is choosing to RMT over purchasing MTX.

"

DarthSki44 написал:

"

muzein написал:

RMT and MTX purchases are not mutually exclusive. Nor could any reasonable argument conclude that the purchase of RMT directly equates to an inverse loss for GGG

Well that's an interesting argument considering you cannot purchase gear or currency from GGG to begin with. Its false equivalence because its not a direct option. No one is claiming that.

Just at a base start, if a casual player had "x" dollars to spend would they rather it have real in game impacts, qol, or massive time savers or alternatively, simple cosmetics? Hell Stash tabs are are huge moneymaker for GGG, why do you think that is? I dont think that's crazy to imagine a player engaging in a process making a decison like this. I'd argue it very reasonable from a logic standpoint (maybe not ethical or game integrity view)

Even if we broke this down to a fundamental standpoint, you could argue RMT impacts player experience and that alone could impact revenues, not to mention the obvious limitations people have in their budgets. Not everyone is a whale, but casuals with money do make choices like this.

I'm not trying to convince you, because I think the evidence is there, even historically, when it comes to RMT. However, to make a statement that its "not reasonable" to assume players make either or financial choices with their money, undermines the reality of the situation. It's already occurring regardless of how you want to quantify it.

"

Nubatron написал:

"

DarthSki44 написал:

"

muzein написал:

RMT and MTX purchases are not mutually exclusive. Nor could any reasonable argument conclude that the purchase of RMT directly equates to an inverse loss for GGG

Well that's an interesting argument considering you cannot purchase gear or currency from GGG to begin with. Its false equivalence because its not a direct option. No one is claiming that.

Just at a base start, if a casual player had "x" dollars to spend would they rather it have real in game impacts, qol, or massive time savers or alternatively, simple cosmetics? Hell Stash tabs are are huge moneymaker for GGG, why do you think that is? I dont think that's crazy to imagine a player engaging in a process making a decison like this. I'd argue it very reasonable from a logic standpoint (maybe not ethical or game integrity view)

Even if we broke this down to a fundamental standpoint, you could argue RMT impacts player experience and that alone could impact revenues, not to mention the obvious limitations people have in their budgets. Not everyone is a whale, but casuals with money do make choices like this.

I'm not trying to convince you, because I think the evidence is there, even historically, when it comes to RMT. However, to make a statement that its "not reasonable" to assume players make either or financial choices with their money, undermines the reality of the situation. It's already occurring regardless of how you want to quantify it.

We are all speculating here but this feels like a fun game to play since we're all clueless on the matter.

Just to play devil's advocate, it is equally possible that people who RMT generate revenue indirectly through losing their accounts. Although the game is playable with 4 stash tabs, it's not desirable. Losing an account to RMT means one of two paths: never playing again, or creating a new account and having another go at it. The 1st route is great because the RMT'er is gone, but since it's really not possible to stop someone from coming back, some will. That person who returns will either be buying new tabs, or playing the game with 4 tabs. Both are possible, one feels more likely.

It's also hard to know if someone who spends money on RMT because they feel forced to, would otherwise buy something that is not forced (cosmetics). The only thing they would potentially feel compelled to buy would be stash tabs, which they might have already purchased and don't provide any value or compulsion to buy once you reach a certain amount (somewhere in the $50 range). That leads to my previous point about being banned potentially leads indirectly to MTX purchases through stash tabs.

There is too many variables to know how this would actually play out, and it feels like a heavy dose of confirmation bias in some of the analysis in this thread.

It is a false dilemma between RMT or MTX. It could be both, one or the other. And there isn't a provable link between any of those three outcomes that would be influenced by RMT.

"

DarthSki44 написал:

Well I even included in my post, that even if you totally remove the "either or" MTX/RMT equation from the conversation, you still have to consider the general player experience in the game as a result of RMT amongst the community, and how that could impact GGG revenue. I could envision some people being turned off of the game if RMT got to an unreasonable level.

It almost seems like the premise of the counterpoint is "why should GGG care if there is RMT if it doesnt hurt the game financially" which I was disputing that I think its logical it does in fact hurt GGG financially.

"

DiabloImmoral написал:

This thread turned into a flag waving competition about intelligence and income because no one is providing proof lmao.

The gold standard is proof of cash out. GGG declared TFT 100% innocent of all wrongdoing 11 months ago. GGG actively made this decision and there's zero chance that higher ups at GGG were unaware of the situation. Straight from the top of GGG, TFT was declared innocent. They're either innocent or there's a conspiracy between GGG execs and TFT. Pick one.

"But why won't they show proof of stash?" In league they did show proof of 250 mirrors. In standard, why would they? Remember that GGG declared them 100% innocent.

"Where are the standard mirrors going?" Who knows? Only GGG. And they declared TFT 100% innocent.

Other proof would be non-hearsay messages admitting RMT activities or getting caught in an RMT transaction. People are generally too smart for this so this will never happen unless someone gets caught bragging. There IS proof of unethical behavior - providing service for an item made by a known RMTer. You seem to consider that damning to the inner circle. I don't. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Do I personally believe they're guilty of RMT? Yes.

Do I believe the people involved are good people? No.

Do I believe GGG should do more to combat RMT? Yes.

Do I believe the base services provided by TFT are good for the game? Absolutely.

Do I believe TFT being powerful is bad for the game? Yes and I've said that for years.

Do I believe GGG supports TFT's continued existence and has encouraged them to grow all these years? Yes and I've said that for years.

Do I want there to be a major drama explosion where multiple top 10 streamers (as has been claimed) are proven to be RMTers? Yes it would be hilarious.

Do I want there to be a proven conspiracy between GGG and TFT, or actual proof shown against TFT owners that causes the entire ship to crash and burn? Yes it would be hilarious.

Do I want all RMTers to be banned so that entire markets can't be cornered with ill gotten gains? Definitely.

That's every opinion I have. Continue calling me a shill apologist I guess.

"

Nubatron написал:

It is a false dilemma between RMT or MTX. It could be both, one or the other. And there isn't a provable link between any of those three outcomes that would be influenced by RMT.

"

Nubatron написал:

"

DarthSki44 написал:

Well I even included in my post, that even if you totally remove the "either or" MTX/RMT equation from the conversation, you still have to consider the general player experience in the game as a result of RMT amongst the community, and how that could impact GGG revenue. I could envision some people being turned off of the game if RMT got to an unreasonable level.

It almost seems like the premise of the counterpoint is "why should GGG care if there is RMT if it doesnt hurt the game financially" which I was disputing that I think its logical it does in fact hurt GGG financially.

Sure, some of the community will be pissed about the actions of others. If it is not RMT, then they will find another cause to be angry about. I can at least agree that some people will let that get in the way of enjoying the game. I actually feel a little sorry for those folks though since there are so many RMT-like things to be angry about so if it's not RMT, it will be botting, or legal trading, or a build that is stronger/weaker, etc.

Does it lead to a drop in revenue? Maybe. But I think that drop is inevitable because those people are just looking for reasons to be angry and will inevitably leave anyway or have an ulterior motive. You can already see the ulterior motives in this thread. People claiming that GGG brought RMT on themselves because of the scarcity of items as an example -- they clearly have an axe to grind already and just use this as a flashpoint to support an alternate agenda.

As I said earlier though, we're all clueless on this point and just guessing while letting our bias infect our analysis of the situation (myself included of course).

"

DarthSki44 написал:

Interstersing. So in your view it's not really worth it for GGG to combat RMT becasue the resulting potential revenue dips were inevitable anyways? People will just find something else to be angry about so why concern themselves with RMT in general?