Arath

Anybody else feel like Activision and Blizzard are try to time this release around The Old Republic?

Supply is 100% controlled by Blizzard.  Every single item being sold on the AH belongs to Blizzard, they are only allowing you to keep a part of the profits for finalizing a sale for them. If the players owned the items the AH would be completely pointless as they would be able to legally sell their items outside the game and keep the full profit themselves. The way you're portraying it Blizzard is supposedly stepping in as a third party to make sure the seller and the buyer is getting a fair deal. But who is gonna make sure the seller and the buyer doesn't get screwed by Blizzard, considering they also have a stake in the deal ? If you're thinking Blizzard would have no reason to screw the players, as it could lead to less sales etc, how does the same not apply to any major gold-selling site ?

@Arath said:

Why is it questionable for Blizzard to regulate market trade where they are the sole supplier?

You don't see any issue with a system where the ones that has the most to earn are also the ones making the rules ? It's basically the same as what happens in black markets, since there's no third party to control the market the big traders make all the rules and stack the deck to be all in their own favor.

@Stahlbrand said:

A lot of hysterics here, but Isn't this just like the argument for legalizing and regulating soft drugs?

A) real money trading has been, and will always continue to be epidemic

B) RMT exists as a black market, controlled by scumbags

C) RMT scumbags increase victimization (gold farming) and over-inflate value

D) Inflated value of RMT goods leads to secondary crime (fraud, theft)

At least if Blizzard creates a structured and regulated environment for RMT they can control it, observe it closely, and hopefully ameliorate the criminogenic factors.

I will play the game without participation in RMT, or broader BattleNet online garbage (just co-op with my brother) so it is no big deal to me directly, but if it reduces gold farm spam and unfortunate consequences of black market RMT, I can support it.

That still doesn't change the fact that it's questionable for Blizzard to be the ones to regulate the trade in a market where they are the sole supplier. To put in gaming terms, it would sorta be like having EA or Activision taking over the job for ESRB.

Wow, people are comparing this to the legalization of substances that are proven to physically destroy and kill the human body? Really guys? I'm sorry but a little bit of reasoning and perspective is required here, this is a game first and foremost. Nothing that is done in it is equivalent to the real world problems involved with hard drugs, so no comparisons please. It's not "like" something, it is what it is, if you want to make comparisons, let them be to other things in the entertainment or IT industry (there are plenty to be had).
 
Second if you don't like it, don't support it, nothing shows a company better than voting with your wallet. That being said, personally this is not a problem.
 
If it creates a two tier system between the real $ Auction House and the Gold Auction House, then we have to live with the PvP implications this may have as you effectively have to pay to win, but only for the PvP aspect of the game (which, if this interests you, is a somewhat legitimate concern). The fact is you can take part in this too, if you really are going to buy your way to the best gear (which I find strange that you would) you can do so by playing the game and selling your items for real $.
 
We can argue about the economics of how this will play out in reality, but unlike, say an MMO the world space you farm in, if you so choose to farm, is your own so you have no resource competition, only market competition, which is a self regulating one in this case, but that debate is outwith the scope of this comment.

It's definately about support and how easy it is to get started. You type XNA into google and bam, within 5 minutes you can download the development tools and begin tinkering. If I want to begin developing for PSN... where do I begin? Is it really any surprise that the barrier to entry is simply much higher on PSN for indie developers than it is on XBL.
 
Further to this Microsoft has done a fantastic job of really categorizing Indie development titles as it's own separate niche, through XBLA, which has definitely helped. While 20 Million is nothing to scoff at, I wonder whether this is really addressing the accesibility issue at it's roots.

@dbz1995 said:

If this makes Vita pricing go down, I will be a happy bunny.

That would be awesome, but I doubt it. I feel like Sony is probably already losing quite a bit on each of those machines (although I don't know that for sure).

The problem with the casual market is that it is not a sustainable market for their (Nintendo) products. Unlike say Apple which has developed an incredible model of repackaging the same good with minor upgrades and tweaks to resell to the same consumers, you just can't do that with a console. The console business has always been about software really and Nintendo to a large extent have tried to manage without that, with peripherals and the like. At this stage I think the market is starting to show it won't support a model like this, especially a consumer tendencies shift to other portable devices for their gaming fix.
 
It should be noted that since the news was reported the shares have gone back up 9% which is a pretty volatile shift overall, so the drop is actually 12% (which is still significant). Hopefully this leads to Nintendo reevaluating their current approach to hardware and peripherals, hopefully with a return to more software.

@White_Silhouette said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@White_Silhouette said:

You said : " Now if they were reporting a projected loss of 82% things would be different."

82% of what? That is my question you cant use a % without saying what is the % of.

Sorry since the topic was about finances I assumed that you realize that it would be about money.

Are you being thick on purpose?

82% of what money?

You need a goddamn base amount to have a % of or at least specify the relevant subject for the % to exist.

No I think this shows that consumers have hopefully voted with heir wallets. The Economist was citing figures for revenue from 3D movies versus their same version in 2D as having dropped significantly to account for only about 30% of a movies revenue as opposed to about 70%. 
 
I think people are not impressed by novelty of 3D enough to warrant purchasing the machine for that reason alone. Coupled with no software and I don't think it is any surprise this has not done as well as they suspected. Sure this drop may in part be due to preemptively strike at the PS Vita, but I think this is more fear than anything else. With a weaker dollar to the Yen also, who is surprised, their projected Revenue shows that they wildly over estimated what they could get away with. The Wii went to their head a little.
 
Software is always king...