IMO, Gem Prices need to be regulated

#1 - April 16, 2013, 4:36 p.m.

When I started playing in Dec, Gems were 1.80g per 100. I saw this as a reasonable investment to expanding my character and purchasing things I wanted as a player with limited finances IRL. I am unable to buy gems with $$ so earning them with gold in game was a welcome sight and something that kept me invested in the game.

Now that Gems are over 3.18g per 100 it is out of hand. I can no longer tell people on other forums discussing this game that it doesnt take a real money investment to get access to things like extra bank and bag slots if you are just joining the game today. Working your kitten off to be able to afford the nice things in this game has become extraordinarily difficult, at least for me and has caused major burnout on my end trying to keep up.

It is my belief that ANet needs to step in and put a definitive, solid price on Gems and end this constant inflation that will drive people away from the game that cant keep up with the unending pursuit of gold to feed the system.

John Smith

#78 - April 19, 2013, 11:02 a.m.

I see no current issues with the exchange, it’s functioning very well. Remember for every opinion on which way should be “favored” there is at least one opinion for the opposite.

PS please stop calling everything inflation, it’s driving me mad.

John Smith

#144 - April 24, 2013, 12:42 p.m.

Aurisai.3416:
If this increase in the gold supply is not counteracted strongly enough with gold sinks, we have a textbook economic definition of inflation.

“In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time”

Time for new textbooks; change in money supply is not a change in price level, they are not interchangeable.

John Smith

#150 - April 24, 2013, 3:31 p.m.

MRA.4758:
(Same “textbook” source as your quote.)

~MRA

I laughed at “textbook”, one for you, but I encourage you to search that textbook for whether or not that’s true; especially considering the state of the economy and a video game economy.

John Smith

#157 - April 24, 2013, 5:09 p.m.

Vlad Morbius.1759:
John Smith.4610:
MRA.4758:
(Same “textbook” source as your quote.)

~MRA

I laughed at “textbook”, one for you, but I encourage you to search that textbook for whether or not that’s true; especially considering the state of the economy and a video game economy.

I for one don’t mind your input but I am not a fan of your condescending attitude and ridicule towards anyone who is not a student of economics, although you are right this is a video game you manage the economy for…so just how credible does that make you in the field of economics?

Maybe you missed the joke here? He is pointing out that I googled the copy paste inflation definition and I’m acknowledging he caught me. Then I’m telling him to look for evidence that changes in money supply don’t necessitate inflation. There is nothing condescending in this post at all.

Mentioning the video game economy is mentioning that it’s a specific type of economy, not mentioning it holds less value.

John Smith

#194 - April 26, 2013, 10:52 a.m.

Kraggy.4169:
John Smith.4610:
Mentioning the video game economy is mentioning that it’s a specific type of economy, not mentioning it holds less value.

The point is as I see it, what basis is there for considering the world of video game ‘economics’ has anything to do with ‘real world’ economies.

Because that’s what you continually portray yourself as being an expert in and use arguments from ‘real world’ economics, while in fact your professional life is managing an entirely artificial ‘economy’ with many constraints and attributes entirely absent from the ‘real world’ (and vice versa).

As for the issue of your “condescending tone”, as he alluded to, your replies to those who don’t profess or exhibit such expertise are often condescending rather than educational (since you often portray them by the wording and tone of your replies to them as being ignorant).

The tone your referring to is when I get frustrated with reiterating the same points. It isn’t a lack of education that upsets me, it’s stating ideas as facts without bothering to research what one is stating. Referring to things that aren’t inflation as inflation is a pet peeve of mine because it misleads people who aren’t specialists, and misinformation is something that upsets me (because of the rightfully earned stigma surrounding statistics).

That being said, that behavior is the minority here. This subforum has a plethora of really intelligent participants, debating really interesting topics all the time (this thread is a great example).

Ok, so lets split this thread up, because we’re a bit off topic. In this thread we should discuss whether gem prices should be regulated. In a new thread we should discuss different schools of economics, and lastly we should start a thread on this idea that Kraggy is speaking on, “The point is as I see it, what basis is there for considering the world of video game ‘economics’ has anything to do with ‘real world’ economies.” because I think that’s interesting.