Vargamonth.2047 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Fair? I don't know, but it's definitely one of those few things that ANet has handled right. Even the taxes seem OK, as there has not been flipping opportunities for over a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkForcE.9210 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Before PoF, exchange rate is 1.2k gems per 250 golds After PoF, exchange rate is lol to 1.4k gems per 250 golds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoarChaos.8320 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Quite a few people need to learn what a currency exchange is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psientist.6437 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > Some people seem to believe that one's "personal" definition of fairness matters to a discussion of the fairness of this business practice. That's not really relevant to the discussion. Fairness is a societal construct. The fact that a discussion is taking place about the fairness of the exchange is a perfect example. > > So, what's so about fairness in relation to commodities exchanges in western society? > > + Anyone who visits an exchange at a particular moment in time sees the same rate. This means it is impartial, with no favoritism or discrimination. That's fair. > + Commodity exchanges are under no societal obligation to see to it that if one buys commodity X, one can immediately sell commodity X and break even (or profit). That's fair in the world at large, so it is also fair in the game. > + In commodities exchanges, rates change based on supply and demand. This is accepted in other venues. It also seems to be true in game. The amount of gold needed to get a fixed amount of gems goes up when there is something new in the store, and down during dry periods. Also, the amount of gems needed to obtain a fixed amount of gold tends to increase when something requiring a lot of gold -- like the griffon -- is released. Looks like supply and demand. That's fair, and just. > + Businesses levy fees. Sometimes the fee is part of the sale price. Sometimes it is a separate line item. Sometimes it's applied by the exchange, sometimes by the broker. Which of those applies is irrelevant to fairness or justice. Yes, added fees increase the price of whatever is being purchased. So what? Higher prices are disadvantageous? Personal advantage is neither a fairness nor a justice issue. > + Consumers have the right to control their own spending. True in the world at large, especially with regard to luxury items. True in the game. > > So, where does one's personal take on morality or fairness come in? Without societal agreement, one's personal morality can only influence one's own behavior. People are of course free to debate using their personal definition of fairness as a starting point. However, someone's personal morality only matters to the group if general agreement can be reached. Based on the above bullet points, the argument in favor of, "Not fair." has a lot to do. Indeed! In the context of GW2 markets, gems have a lot in common with any other commodity and framing gems as such is a productive way to approach the gem exchange's fairness. If the gem exchange is unfair then the GW2 economy as whole is also unfair. Imo, the two ways gems diverge from other Tyrian commodities are: Supply demand equilibrium price emerges from an algorithm that replaces the aggregate calculation performed by many independent economic actors. One could argue that the difference is negligible, even that the difference becomes less important over time. The gem exchange involves three parties, the studio who sells gems, players with gold, players with gems. The exchange of other Tyrian commodities involves 2 actors, players with gold and players with commodity X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Godrik.5841 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Personally I feel it not fair at all. You will never get your gold back, by converting even if you buy it at it lowest and trade at its highest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psientist.6437 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 > @"shopt.1730" said: > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > **Fees in both Directions:** Yes, it's fair because its a set of fees consistent with any trades that happen via BLTC/TP (although it's a little higher & I do wish ANet would explain why). It acts as another important sink for gold and it applies evenly to both sides of the equation. It's also consistent with RL exchanges. And ultimately there has to be a fee to keep things fair, otherwise speculators could invest at different times of day|week|month to profit heavily from the arbitrage, which helps them, but hurts trustworthiness of the process. (And would add unfortunate spikes of volatility whenever people are interested in new/returning items.) > > > > I agree with most of the points you have made in this thread, but I'm not sure zero/low fee exchange would necessarily increase volatility. In most other markets, these arbitragers tend to smooth out the price and kill off the very cycle they were profiting off. Having said that, speculators could cause all sorts of problems with low fees. Whether the cyclic arbitragers or speculation frenzy would win out isn't obvious to me. Productive arbitrage can decrease price volatility but only when arbitrators are able to post buy and sell orders independently. Such is the case in the general Tyrian gold economy. To realize any gains from general arbitrage, the gem exchange would need to fundamentally change. Players would need to give up access to a guaranteed buyer and seller of gems and gold. The most likely people to benefit from reducing gem exchange fees are players who take long breaks from the game and use gems as a store for wealth and black market gold sellers. The former has other options and discovering those options requires increasing their understanding of the market. When the studio makes decisions about the economy, there is a limit to how much consideration the studio should give to players who don't engage in the economy. The latter are the most likely to have the tools and expertise to take advantage of exceptionally easy to predict surges in the demand for gems. I would be thunderstruck if the mean, median, or mode player cycles gems to gold then back into gems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folk.8190 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 a bit off topic very often at an auction I see like that. https://www.gw2shinies.com/item/37629 or for example this one thing https://www.gw2shinies.com/item/41658 is it a GoldSellers or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linken.6345 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"folk.8190" said: > a bit off topic > very often at an auction I see like that. https://www.gw2shinies.com/item/37629 or for example this one thing https://www.gw2shinies.com/item/41658 > is it a GoldSellers or what? it can be a tp flipper that want to move gold from his alt account to his main and not have to take out 500g each week from the mail aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 I read a lot the argument that all gems are being bought by players and Arenanet gets paid for every gem sold. While this might be true, then explain to me why Mike O'Brien was so concerned in an previous post that "single items do not sell" but "bundles sell well". If Arenanet was concerned about their gem sales then they wouldn't care now would they? It wouldn't matter to them if Item A is being sold for cash or gold, since it both cases they get the cash for those gems, right? So why such a huge change in gem store policy, offering stupidly expensive items and bundles instead of single items? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner Blackfeather.6509 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > I read a lot the argument that all gems are being bought by players and Arenanet gets paid for every gem sold. While this might be true, then explain to me why Mike O'Brien was so concerned in an previous post that "single items do not sell" but "bundles sell well". If Arenanet was concerned about their gem sales then they wouldn't care now would they? It wouldn't matter to them if Item A is being sold for cash or gold, since it both cases they get the cash for those gems, right? > > So why such a huge change in gem store policy, offering stupidly expensive items and bundles instead of single items? I don't recall MO's statement saying anything about gems bought with cash vs gems bought with gold. What's important to Anet is that *gems are spent*. If bundles make people part with gems (whether aquired via cash or gold), then his statement is true. I dislike the focus on expensive items/bundles, but I can't see how his statement relates to the Gem Exchange in any way, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psientist.6437 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > I read a lot the argument that all gems are being bought by players and Arenanet gets paid for every gem sold. While this might be true, then explain to me why Mike O'Brien was so concerned in an previous post that "single items do not sell" but "bundles sell well". If Arenanet was concerned about their gem sales then they wouldn't care now would they? It wouldn't matter to them if Item A is being sold for cash or gold, since it both cases they get the cash for those gems, right? > > So why such a huge change in gem store policy, offering stupidly expensive items and bundles instead of single items? The fact that all gems in the exchange come from players does not predict that (a) buying gem store items with gold has an equivalent effect on the studio's revenue as buying gems with cash. It also doesn't predict that (b) the studio can use any pricing strategy for gem store items and expect the same revenue outcome. To understand why this is true, you need to understand two basic micro-economic principles. I am not going to explain them in detail, but here are links to easy to understand videos. Supply and demand equilibrium https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/supply-demand-equilibrium/market-equilibrium-tutorial/v/market-equilibrium Total revenue and price price point elasticity https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/elasticity-tutorial/price-elasticity-tutorial/v/total-revenue-and-elasticity Since players control the supply of gold and gems and are responsible for the shape of the demand curves for gold and gems, we can confidently predict an equilibrium exchange rate that emerges from the player base. If you watched the video you understand that there is an optimal price point that will generate the greatest revenue. This predicts that there is an optimal price point for the gem to gold conversion (price of gold) where the studio will generate maximum revenue. When anyone argues (a) or (b) they are claiming the equilibrium exchange rate and the optimal exchange rate for the studio are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said: > I don't recall MO's statement saying anything about gems bought with cash vs gems bought with gold. What's important to Anet is that *gems are spent*. If bundles make people part with gems (whether aquired via cash or gold), then his statement is true. > > I dislike the focus on expensive items/bundles, but I can't see how his statement relates to the Gem Exchange in any way, really. There was no such statement. The statement was about individual items not selling as well as bundles and expensive items. I personally find it impossible to believe that individual, cheap, single, items do not sell more than bundles/expensive items. I have only anecdotal evidence to provide, but take a look how many players have a good single outfit, like let's say Balthazar's Outfit, or old armor skins like the Zodiac armor compared to a bundle outfit like the Bandit Sniper outfit or one of the unique mount skins. In my personal experience the old skins are more widely seen than the newer bundled and expensive items, so saying that the bundles and the expensive items provide more revenue than the old single cheap skins is a bit weird. I don't know if there is a way to track, or tell, if an item was bought with gems directly purchased with cash, or gems bought with gold. I might be wrong of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 The goal in introducing a new expensive item is to induce players to buy more gems. Sure Anet received revenue for the gems already in the economy but the goal is to generate additional, new, revenue. An inexpensive item added to the store is more likely to be readily able to be paid for with existing gems than an expensive one. So a high priced item or bundle added to the gem store is more likely to generate revenue than a low priced item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > I read a lot the argument that all gems are being bought by players and Arenanet gets paid for every gem sold. While this might be true, then explain to me why Mike O'Brien was so concerned in an previous post that "single items do not sell" but "bundles sell well". If Arenanet was concerned about their gem sales then they wouldn't care now would they? It wouldn't matter to them if Item A is being sold for cash or gold, since it both cases they get the cash for those gems, right? > > So why such a huge change in gem store policy, offering stupidly expensive items and bundles instead of single items? What he said was that lower-ticket items do not produce the revenue needed to keep the game going, whereas larger-ticket items do. Both sell, but the more gems needed to get items (however those gems get acquired), the more ANet makes. So, what's going on? Here's one scenario. For whatever reasons, there are fewer buyers. The game is aging. Older games always bleed players over time and struggle to attract new players. Every change ANet makes to the game turns someone off. Some of them leave. This is consistent with the falling revenue reports via NCSoft. Of the players who remain, a lot of them who bought utility items (like bag and bank slots, character slots, etc.) already have as many as they want. This means that cosmetic items need to assume a larger role in revenue production, but are doing so with a smaller consumer base. Also, the appeal of cosmetic items is not universal, since peoples' tastes vary. Therefore, cosmetic items have to cost more gems (however acquired) to keep revenue up. This explanation dovetails with what ANet has told us (MO'B's statement, plus the way that gems get into the exchange). The alternative, that gold-for-gems costs ANet money, is not what ANet has told us, nor is it necessary to explain the change in gem-store practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khisanth.2948 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said: > > I don't recall MO's statement saying anything about gems bought with cash vs gems bought with gold. What's important to Anet is that *gems are spent*. If bundles make people part with gems (whether aquired via cash or gold), then his statement is true. > > > > I dislike the focus on expensive items/bundles, but I can't see how his statement relates to the Gem Exchange in any way, really. > > There was no such statement. The statement was about individual items not selling as well as bundles and expensive items. I personally find it impossible to believe that individual, cheap, single, items do not sell more than bundles/expensive items. > > I have only anecdotal evidence to provide, but take a look how many players have a good single outfit, like let's say Balthazar's Outfit, or old armor skins like the Zodiac armor compared to a bundle outfit like the Bandit Sniper outfit or one of the unique mount skins. In my personal experience the old skins are more widely seen than the newer bundled and expensive items, so saying that the bundles and the expensive items provide more revenue than the old single cheap skins is a bit weird. I don't know if there is a way to track, or tell, if an item was bought with gems directly purchased with cash, or gems bought with gold. > > I might be wrong of course. When I look at the bunch of glider/back item combo items I've bought where I only like one or the other I can see how "bundles sell better than individual items". If I have the option to only buy what I want without any of the extra crap that I don't want then that is definitely what I am going to do. Obviously since I did buy those things there is a bit of leeway on how much extra junk I am willing to pay for. 20 crappy skins with maybe 10 desirable ones is way beyond my tolerance. To throw a huge wrench into the whole mess is the issue of personal taste. Since the gems bought with gold was originally bought with cash it is not necessary to track that. They just need to track how much gems were being spent. It shouldn't matter if you are spending your cash or someone else's, the money is the same regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psientist.6437 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 Since this is a thread about the broad fairness of the gem exchange then discussing how fair it is to the studio is justified. The notion that the gem exchange can't cost the studio revenue is a long standing rumor turned myth. This next sentence must be about the ethical burden this implies for the studio and I do not ignore it as I argue that the studio could extract more revenue from us. I think the myth exists because when some players make the argument that gem exchange prices accurately represent player supply and demand (they do); it is easy for some players to overextend from there and argue that for the studio, gold is as good as gems. There is no discrete share of gem supply or gold supply that has enough value to claim that anyone is spending someone else's cash. Since we are using an algorithm, only the ratio of gold to gem has value. The algorithm calculates an immediate buy and sell offer and players respond. In the real world the work of the algorithm would be done by everyone as they trade. Arguably, there are distinctions. When players buy gems with gold, they push the price of gold down. There is a complex demand curve describing player demand for gold in general as well as the demand for gem to gold conversions. Somewhere on that complex slope/topography there is an optimal price point/line describing optimal revenue for a supplier of gems. The studio handed pricing over the the players, we calculate the price and there is no reason to predict that price as the optimal revenue price. If the equilibrium price calculated by us is lower than the optimal revenue price, gold is on sale and new gem store items put gold on a mega sale. From the perspective of the supplier of gems, the sales would be unnecessary and lost revenue. The presence of the gem exchange will have a positive effect on box sale revenue. However, other positive effects on revenue do not make negative effects disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 This question doesn't even make sense ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra.3246 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 > @"Panda.1967" said: > No... reasoning, inconsistent exchange. > > 400 gems can currently be exchanged for 72 gold, but requires 106 gold to buy. > > Fair would be the same exchange rate both directions. Truer words were never said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 If people truly believe that both exchange rates should be the same then prove your case that there wouldn’t be any negative repercussions for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauried.5608 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 When you exchange currency in the game , ie gems for gold or gold for gems , you are being provided with a service which you have to pay for. No differant to the real world where exchanging currencies costs money. There seems to be a concept in the game that for something to be fair , it has to be free also. Fair is a meaningless concert anyway as it means something differant to everyone. When you sell something on the TP it costs you 15% of the price to sell it. I guess thats also unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 > @"Sombra.3246" said: > > @"Panda.1967" said: > > No... reasoning, inconsistent exchange. > > > > 400 gems can currently be exchanged for 72 gold, but requires 106 gold to buy. > > > > Fair would be the same exchange rate both directions. > > Truer words were never said. Never? Let me be the first, then: "Existence of transaction tax has nothing to do with the fairness of the exchange system" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thromos.7038 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 > @"Ameepa.6793" said: > I think it's very fair to allow us to buy gems with gold. Never seen such a thing anywhere else. LOTRO - in game gold could buy their LOTRO points. Paid for quite a few perks that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kas.3509 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said: > > @"Linken.6345" said: > > You are wrong mate they keep the gems in the pool they dont vanish, what vanish is the extra gold you pay to get 389 gems > > Your assertion is not supported by basic arithmetic. Player 1 buys 100 gold, pays 575 gems. Player 2 sells 100 gold, receives 389 gems. There's no extra gold anywhere in that equation. There is only 186 gems that go missing. Lol? It can be as well said as: Player 1 buys 400 gems pays 100 gold. Player 2 sells 400 gems receives 72 gold. Now its 28 gold missing and no gems : p Magic xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boulder.3589 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Think of it more like an auction house for buying or selling just gems, with a listing fee just like the regular auction house. If you bought a ruby from the regular ah and sold it back at same price you end up with less gold than when you started due to fees. Or sold a ruby then bought it back at same price you listed, you end up with less gold too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk.6274 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 I personally would prefer to not have something that exchanged real currency with ingame currency. Sounds abit p2w to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now