Guild Wars 2

While there is a Trading Post where players can freely trade most items in the game, isn’t the overall economy of the game a monopoly market structure?

Most of the supply of tradeable items come from RNG-based loot drops or crafted items derived from materials that come from RNG-based loot drops, with some exceptions (ie Mystic Coins from Daily achievements, crafting components from NPC vendors, etc).

The developers determine the rate of tradeable items through drop rates for RNG based items and determine the gold/token amounts for NPC acquired items. Therefore, the supply of all items available in-game and subsequently the Trading Post is determined by ArenaNet at the game-wide scale, which is characteristic of a monopoly. In fact, I would say that all MMO (or even video game) market structures are ultimately monopolies.

In terms of the Trading Post, the players still drive the economy by generating items from playing the game and control the supply of items on the Trading Post itself. Through the Trading Post, there is a “free” market of sorts, where different types of items are in different markets of varying levels of competition. For example, common items may be in sub-markets that are nearer to perfect competition while rarer/limited items may be in sub-markets that are more closer to oligopolies, where a few player sellers control the supply of those particular items.

However, the developers determine the rarity of those items in sub-markets since they control the rate of item drops received by players. The players may control the generation of those items through playing the content, but that can all change with a patch. So even while sub-markets on the Trading Post may have different market structures, the market structure of the game economy as a whole is ultimately a monopoly.

Only if you really stretch the definition of monopoly by linking it all back to Anet. But even that isn’t really accurate; Anet may have the ultimate call in how goods are generated, but players ultimately decide the quantity to put effort into generating.

In other words, everyone has to go to Anet’s mechanics to acquire goods (which is sort of like a single seller if we’re stretching the definition of monopoly) but part of the reason it’s such a stretch is that once we have acquired an item from Anet’s game mechanics, we enter into what is roughly perfect competition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

With Anet being like a third party that regulates and ensures that market conditions continue to allow perfect competition.

I think the simplest way to understand it is that Anet is like the government and we’re like the society living under the government’s rules, i.e. we have tons of market freedoms afforded to us and are mostly left to our own devices, but Anet (the “government”) can step in when they feel the need.

Labjax.2465:

Only if you really stretch the definition of monopoly by linking it all back to Anet. But even that isn’t really accurate; Anet may have the ultimate call in how goods are generated, but players ultimately decide the quantity to put effort into generating.

In other words, everyone has to go to Anet’s mechanics to acquire goods (which is sort of like a single seller if we’re stretching the definition of monopoly) but part of the reason it’s such a stretch is that once we have acquired an item from Anet’s game mechanics, we enter into what is roughly perfect competition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

With Anet being like a third party that regulates and ensures that market conditions continue to allow perfect competition.

I think the simplest way to understand it is that Anet is like the government and we’re like the society living under the government’s rules, i.e. we have tons of market freedoms afforded to us and are mostly left to our own devices, but Anet (the “government”) can step in when they feel the need.

That makes sense. I agree that the game mechanics, such as RNG-based drops, do not control the specific quantity of items available on the market, as players determine the quantity of items supplied on the markets through their efforts in playing the content, receiving the items as rewards, and putting what they want to sell on the market.

However, the inherent control over game mechanics by the developers (ie through setting of drop-rates and such) seemed to be monopolistic level of market control, which is natural in a video game.

Labjax.2465:

… Anet may have the ultimate call in how goods are generated, but players ultimately decide the quantity to put effort into generating.

Your quote implies that the market is free to react to increased demand by putting a corresponding increased amount of effort and time into generation/supply.

However for a lot of goods the market isn’t able to efficiently react to increased demand as a result of Anet imposed controls.

Diminishing returns, time-gated crafting, static number of resource nodes with set refresh rate, class based loot, and I’m sure other mechanics that I cant think of off the top of my head all prevent the market from ramping up supply of many goods.

Time gating in general, in its various guises, is the basic mechanic used to control/ prevent the markets natural urge to increase supply, and this occurs a lot throughout the game even in the non gold currency areas of the game (dungeon token, fractals, guild commendations, laurels, etc etc).

I’m not particularly knowledgeable about economic theory, but I can’t help thinking this is stretching the concept of a monopoly well past the point where it’s very useful.

John Smith.4610:

No.

The return of Kosh mode.

While the devs do have control over drop rate of both items and coin, it’s the players that decide what item is more desirable than the next which in turn helps set the price. There are other inputs to the price like average salvage value, Mystic Forge value, etc.

John Smith.4610:

No.

We love this John. Please give us more!

Smooth Penguin.5294:

John Smith.4610:

No.

We love this John. Please give us more!

No.

Essence Snow.3194:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

John Smith.4610:

No.

We love this John. Please give us more!

No.

I’m not sure we’ve all agreed that’s a problem.

Every game is a monopoly if you put it that way. There is no real life counter-part to someone that can create unlimited natural resources with a simple database edit.

But yes, Anet does tweak the economy.

They stopped ectos from dropping below 20s and caused permanent hair contracts to drop from 4000g to 1500g.

Gewd.8125:

Every game is a monopoly if you put it that way. There is no real life counter-part to someone that can create unlimited natural resources with a simple database edit.

But yes, Anet does tweak the economy.

They stopped ectos from dropping below 20s and caused permanent hair contracts to drop from 4000g to 1500g.

No. Anet, as a company, didnt list a single ecto or contract on the tp. It was players that stopped that from happening.

I don’t think they change droprates really that often, mostly its more that they create
more demand for some items with new patches/receipes.

I think the simplest way to understand it is that Anet is like the government and we’re like the society living under the government’s rules, i.e. we have tons of market freedoms afforded to us and are mostly left to our own devices, but Anet (the “government”) can step in when they feel the need.

But if so it’s a government that also controls exactly how many raw materials are available to the markets at any given time to be harvested, AND determines the real value of any finished goods (determining what stats a given car would have, for example), so if you’re going to compare their actions to a “government” then it would be the more totalitarian of communist regimes.

I think it’s easier to compare their position in the economy to a God-Game player, like someone playing Black and White, and we’re those little dudes wandering around, with theoretically free will to do as we like.

While the devs do have control over drop rate of both items and coin, it’s the players that decide what item is more desirable than the next which in turn helps set the price.

The players have some influence on desirability, but not really that much. In the case of items with stats, the developers assign the stats to items, and how those stats interact with the world. It’d be like a “government” determining how “physics” works. If an item allows a player to be more successful, it will have higher desirability. If it makes him less successful, it will have low desirability. ANet determines how successful an item will make players, so while they are occasionally surprised by how players choose to employ the tools they provide, for the most part ANet controls that axis of desirability with an iron fist.

As for cosmetics, players can certainly choose to fall in love with one design over another, but ANet clearly attempts to make some items look better than others, with some fairly dull and generic low end items and much flashier high end ones. Sometimes players don’t love what is intended to be a high end piece, but it’s not as if ANet is just throwing random designs out there at all level ranges without any concern as to which is meant to be more appealing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I imagine that overall player demand for skins is roughly within the designers’ expectations on average.

No. Anet, as a company, didnt list a single ecto or contract on the tp. It was players that stopped that from happening.

This is a silly argument. Nobody is saying that ANet is actively engaged in the markets directly, buying and selling items. They don’t have to. They don’t need to move the puppet’s limbs themselves, they have the strings to do that. If they want the price of something to rise, they don’t buy out the existing stock and relist it higher, they don’t have to. They just have to add recipes that make the item more useful, or decrease its availability as a drop, and the players will jump to the dog whistle. Do not confuse this with free choice of the players, because when these situations occur, the players only have two choices, “jump when ANet says jump,” or “be stupid and fail.”

When only one of the choices leads to success, it cannot be considered a valid choice, it’s like asking someone in advance, “you want the lady, or the tiger? The doors are clearly labeled.”

Ohoni.6057:

I think the simplest way to understand it is that Anet is like the government and we’re like the society living under the government’s rules, i.e. we have tons of market freedoms afforded to us and are mostly left to our own devices, but Anet (the “government”) can step in when they feel the need.

But if so it’s a government that also controls exactly how many raw materials are available to the markets at any given time to be harvested, AND determines the real value of any finished goods (determining what stats a given car would have, for example), so if you’re going to compare their actions to a “government” then it would be the more totalitarian of communist regimes.

I think it’s easier to compare their position in the economy to a God-Game player, like someone playing Black and White, and we’re those little dudes wandering around, with theoretically free will to do as we like.

While the devs do have control over drop rate of both items and coin, it’s the players that decide what item is more desirable than the next which in turn helps set the price.

The players have some influence on desirability, but not really that much. In the case of items with stats, the developers assign the stats to items, and how those stats interact with the world. It’d be like a “government” determining how “physics” works. If an item allows a player to be more successful, it will have higher desirability. If it makes him less successful, it will have low desirability. ANet determines how successful an item will make players, so while they are occasionally surprised by how players choose to employ the tools they provide, for the most part ANet controls that axis of desirability with an iron fist.

As for cosmetics, players can certainly choose to fall in love with one design over another, but ANet clearly attempts to make some items look better than others, with some fairly dull and generic low end items and much flashier high end ones. Sometimes players don’t love what is intended to be a high end piece, but it’s not as if ANet is just throwing random designs out there at all level ranges without any concern as to which is meant to be more appealing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I imagine that overall player demand for skins is roughly within the designers’ expectations on average.

No. Anet, as a company, didnt list a single ecto or contract on the tp. It was players that stopped that from happening.

This is a silly argument. Nobody is saying that ANet is actively engaged in the markets directly, buying and selling items. They don’t have to. They don’t need to move the puppet’s limbs themselves, they have the strings to do that. If they want the price of something to rise, they don’t buy out the existing stock and relist it higher, they don’t have to. They just have to add recipes that make the item more useful, or decrease its availability as a drop, and the players will jump to the dog whistle. Do not confuse this with free choice of the players, because when these situations occur, the players only have two choices, “jump when ANet says jump,” or “be stupid and fail.”

When only one of the choices leads to success, it cannot be considered a valid choice, it’s like asking someone in advance, “you want the lady, or the tiger? The doors are clearly labeled.”

Still undecided, if I want the Lady or the Tiger, both have pros and cons.

TheModernProphet.9024:

While there is a Trading Post where players can freely trade most items in the game, isn’t the overall economy of the game a monopoly market structure?

Most of the supply of tradeable items come from RNG-based loot drops or crafted items derived from materials that come from RNG-based loot drops, with some exceptions (ie Mystic Coins from Daily achievements, crafting components from NPC vendors, etc).

The developers determine the rate of tradeable items through drop rates for RNG based items and determine the gold/token amounts for NPC acquired items. Therefore, the supply of all items available in-game and subsequently the Trading Post is determined by ArenaNet at the game-wide scale, which is characteristic of a monopoly. In fact, I would say that all MMO (or even video game) market structures are ultimately monopolies.

In terms of the Trading Post, the players still drive the economy by generating items from playing the game and control the supply of items on the Trading Post itself. Through the Trading Post, there is a “free” market of sorts, where different types of items are in different markets of varying levels of competition. For example, common items may be in sub-markets that are nearer to perfect competition while rarer/limited items may be in sub-markets that are more closer to oligopolies, where a few player sellers control the supply of those particular items.

However, the developers determine the rarity of those items in sub-markets since they control the rate of item drops received by players. The players may control the generation of those items through playing the content, but that can all change with a patch. So even while sub-markets on the Trading Post may have different market structures, the market structure of the game economy as a whole is ultimately a monopoly.

they arent really a monopoly because they arent actively profiting/participating off/in the market. They are as others have said all powerful rulers of the economy though.

Wanze.8410:

Still undecided, if I want the Lady or the Tiger, both have pros and cons.

The Tiger is much less dangerous.

Besides, it’s been a while since I read the story, but isn’t the point of it that the doors are not labeled? You don’t know which one you get until you make the choice.

tolunart.2095:

Wanze.8410:

Still undecided, if I want the Lady or the Tiger, both have pros and cons.

The Tiger is much less dangerous.

Besides, it’s been a while since I read the story, but isn’t the point of it that the doors are not labeled? You don’t know which one you get until you make the choice.

Wouldnt have been the first thing he got wrong.

phys.7689:

they arent really a monopoly because they arent actively profiting/participating off/in the market. They are as others have said all powerful rulers of the economy though.

That is true. In terms of the Trading Post, the items come from other players and the exchange fees act mainly as a regulatory gold sink. ArenaNet does not really profit from these market exchanges directly as far as I know, so monopoly-level profit maximization would not be a characteristic of the in-game markets.

As mentioned in previous posts, describing the economy as a monopoly does stretch the definition. Initially, it appeared to be a monopoly type market based on the rationale that the game client, which was created and is continually modified by the developers, is the sole supplier of all items in the game to the players through its mechanics.

But this is not useful to think in terms of market interactions on the Trading Post, where players determine supply of tradeable goods in the market. Modifications to game mechanics in terms of determining/changing availability of items have an impact on the items on the Trading Post, through an indirect manner.

But, as people have mentioned before, as game creators and developers, ArenaNet has more power in-game over the availability of items within the player-driven markets than governments and monopolies in real life market situations due to control of game world mechanics.

And while I have the chance, I would like to say thanks to all the people who provided explanations and reasons for their views on the in-game market. And I appreciate the answer from ArenaNet’s economist, which gave me a laugh.

ArenaNet is operating in the place of “The Invisible Hand” in the game economy. They don’t reflect any government or monopoly, but rather acts of god, physics, etc.

They are the deity that created the system that we play in. They don’t participate in the economy, they simply allow us to.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

The OP’s question would be answered in its entirety by a high school level economics course.

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

Every game is a monopoly if you put it that way. There is no real life counter-part to someone that can create unlimited natural resources with a simple database edit.

But yes, Anet does tweak the economy.

They stopped ectos from dropping below 20s and caused permanent hair contracts to drop from 4000g to 1500g.

No. Anet, as a company, didnt list a single ecto or contract on the tp. It was players that stopped that from happening.

Players had pretty much no say in that. Players consume a set number of ectos daily based on the parameters that the game sets by use of recipes, consumable, armor, weapons, etc. Anet sets the drops rate of ectos based on those recipes. Players have no more say in the price of ectos then rainforests have a choice in which places they grow. The parameters set by anet determine the prices of ectos.

I would in fact say that using their databases and monitors on the game that Anet can accurately predict within 1s what the price of ecto will settle at based on their changes to the game, before the changes go into the game and before a player sells a single ecto.

Players only set demand, supply is strictly controlled by Anet by the games parameters.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

Every game is a monopoly if you put it that way. There is no real life counter-part to someone that can create unlimited natural resources with a simple database edit.

But yes, Anet does tweak the economy.

They stopped ectos from dropping below 20s and caused permanent hair contracts to drop from 4000g to 1500g.

No. Anet, as a company, didnt list a single ecto or contract on the tp. It was players that stopped that from happening.

Players had pretty much no say in that. Players consume a set number of ectos daily based on the parameters that the game sets by use of recipes, consumable, armor, weapons, etc. Anet sets the drops rate of ectos based on those recipes. Players have no more say in the price of ectos then rainforests have a choice in which places they grow. The parameters set by anet determine the prices of ectos.

I would in fact say that using their databases and monitors on the game that Anet can accurately predict within 1s what the price of ecto will settle at based on their changes to the game, before the changes go into the game and before a player sells a single ecto.

Players only set demand, supply is strictly controlled by Anet by the games parameters.

Thanks for explaining in more detail, that Anet doesnt list or buy a single ecto or contract on the tp.

Wanze.8410:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

Every game is a monopoly if you put it that way. There is no real life counter-part to someone that can create unlimited natural resources with a simple database edit.

But yes, Anet does tweak the economy.

They stopped ectos from dropping below 20s and caused permanent hair contracts to drop from 4000g to 1500g.

No. Anet, as a company, didnt list a single ecto or contract on the tp. It was players that stopped that from happening.

Players had pretty much no say in that. Players consume a set number of ectos daily based on the parameters that the game sets by use of recipes, consumable, armor, weapons, etc. Anet sets the drops rate of ectos based on those recipes. Players have no more say in the price of ectos then rainforests have a choice in which places they grow. The parameters set by anet determine the prices of ectos.

I would in fact say that using their databases and monitors on the game that Anet can accurately predict within 1s what the price of ecto will settle at based on their changes to the game, before the changes go into the game and before a player sells a single ecto.

Players only set demand, supply is strictly controlled by Anet by the games parameters.

Thanks for explaining in more detail, that Anet doesnt list or buy a single ecto or contract on the tp.

So no actual logical rebuttal then?

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

Every game is a monopoly if you put it that way. There is no real life counter-part to someone that can create unlimited natural resources with a simple database edit.

But yes, Anet does tweak the economy.

They stopped ectos from dropping below 20s and caused permanent hair contracts to drop from 4000g to 1500g.

No. Anet, as a company, didnt list a single ecto or contract on the tp. It was players that stopped that from happening.

Players had pretty much no say in that. Players consume a set number of ectos daily based on the parameters that the game sets by use of recipes, consumable, armor, weapons, etc. Anet sets the drops rate of ectos based on those recipes. Players have no more say in the price of ectos then rainforests have a choice in which places they grow. The parameters set by anet determine the prices of ectos.

I would in fact say that using their databases and monitors on the game that Anet can accurately predict within 1s what the price of ecto will settle at based on their changes to the game, before the changes go into the game and before a player sells a single ecto.

Players only set demand, supply is strictly controlled by Anet by the games parameters.

Thanks for explaining in more detail, that Anet doesnt list or buy a single ecto or contract on the tp.

So no actual logical rebuttal then?

Wha should I when you agree with me.

Redenaz.8631:

I’m not particularly knowledgeable about economic theory.

Besides the yes or no question at the very beginning (to which the answer is no) the original post wasn’t intelligible.

That’s not saying that he doesn’t have a point or that his point isn’t valid – I just have no idea what his point is.

Wanze.8410:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

Every game is a monopoly if you put it that way. There is no real life counter-part to someone that can create unlimited natural resources with a simple database edit.

But yes, Anet does tweak the economy.

They stopped ectos from dropping below 20s and caused permanent hair contracts to drop from 4000g to 1500g.

No. Anet, as a company, didnt list a single ecto or contract on the tp. It was players that stopped that from happening.

Players had pretty much no say in that. Players consume a set number of ectos daily based on the parameters that the game sets by use of recipes, consumable, armor, weapons, etc. Anet sets the drops rate of ectos based on those recipes. Players have no more say in the price of ectos then rainforests have a choice in which places they grow. The parameters set by anet determine the prices of ectos.

I would in fact say that using their databases and monitors on the game that Anet can accurately predict within 1s what the price of ecto will settle at based on their changes to the game, before the changes go into the game and before a player sells a single ecto.

Players only set demand, supply is strictly controlled by Anet by the games parameters.

Thanks for explaining in more detail, that Anet doesnt list or buy a single ecto or contract on the tp.

So no actual logical rebuttal then?

Wha should I when you agree with me.

They may not list any items but they still control the price. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that, or that there is even a way to avoid it, but they do set the approximate price of items by determining their scarcity in the world.

This of course is not a monopoly, but it also is not 100% player controlled. If players had control of the faucets I think the precursor faucet would be opened a few more turns as would the silk faucet.

Again, not saying that would be a good thing, but it is what the majority of the playerbase would choose to do if they controlled supply of items.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

Every game is a monopoly if you put it that way. There is no real life counter-part to someone that can create unlimited natural resources with a simple database edit.

But yes, Anet does tweak the economy.

They stopped ectos from dropping below 20s and caused permanent hair contracts to drop from 4000g to 1500g.

No. Anet, as a company, didnt list a single ecto or contract on the tp. It was players that stopped that from happening.

Players had pretty much no say in that. Players consume a set number of ectos daily based on the parameters that the game sets by use of recipes, consumable, armor, weapons, etc. Anet sets the drops rate of ectos based on those recipes. Players have no more say in the price of ectos then rainforests have a choice in which places they grow. The parameters set by anet determine the prices of ectos.

I would in fact say that using their databases and monitors on the game that Anet can accurately predict within 1s what the price of ecto will settle at based on their changes to the game, before the changes go into the game and before a player sells a single ecto.

Players only set demand, supply is strictly controlled by Anet by the games parameters.

Thanks for explaining in more detail, that Anet doesnt list or buy a single ecto or contract on the tp.

So no actual logical rebuttal then?

Wha should I when you agree with me.

They may not list any items but they still control the price. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that, or that there is even a way to avoid it, but they do set the approximate price of items by determining their scarcity in the world.

This of course is not a monopoly, but it also is not 100% player controlled. If players had control of the faucets I think the precursor faucet would be opened a few more turns as would the silk faucet.

Again, not saying that would be a good thing, but it is what the majority of the playerbase would choose to do if they controlled supply of items.

hmm i actually wonder what the system would look like if the players controlled the supply more readily. One would think that people would ask for a decent wage, but in cases where players set their own values, i find it is generally low.
for example players can only make 1 ascended ecto per material a day, and yet, when you break down the prices, there is seldom much profit for that.

without tp limits, people would commonly sell under npc prices.

would people go out of their way to get silk, and then charge 10 copper for it?

hmm i wonder.

If players controlled supply, i think they would probably have to make it so that you have to choose what type of drops you are hunting (barring special drops) Then again people would probably tend to choose gold, and the average price of all drops would break down to whatever that amount of gold was.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

Every game is a monopoly if you put it that way. There is no real life counter-part to someone that can create unlimited natural resources with a simple database edit.

But yes, Anet does tweak the economy.

They stopped ectos from dropping below 20s and caused permanent hair contracts to drop from 4000g to 1500g.

No. Anet, as a company, didnt list a single ecto or contract on the tp. It was players that stopped that from happening.

Players had pretty much no say in that. Players consume a set number of ectos daily based on the parameters that the game sets by use of recipes, consumable, armor, weapons, etc. Anet sets the drops rate of ectos based on those recipes. Players have no more say in the price of ectos then rainforests have a choice in which places they grow. The parameters set by anet determine the prices of ectos.

I would in fact say that using their databases and monitors on the game that Anet can accurately predict within 1s what the price of ecto will settle at based on their changes to the game, before the changes go into the game and before a player sells a single ecto.

Players only set demand, supply is strictly controlled by Anet by the games parameters.

Thanks for explaining in more detail, that Anet doesnt list or buy a single ecto or contract on the tp.

So no actual logical rebuttal then?

Wha should I when you agree with me.

They may not list any items but they still control the price. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that, or that there is even a way to avoid it, but they do set the approximate price of items by determining their scarcity in the world.

This of course is not a monopoly, but it also is not 100% player controlled. If players had control of the faucets I think the precursor faucet would be opened a few more turns as would the silk faucet.

Again, not saying that would be a good thing, but it is what the majority of the playerbase would choose to do if they controlled supply of items.

I never said players control faucets but they are 100% responsible for prices of items. Even if ectos wont drop anymore, players still set the prices.

Gewd.8125:

Every game is a monopoly if you put it that way. There is no real life counter-part to someone that can create unlimited natural resources with a simple database edit.

But yes, Anet does tweak the economy.

They stopped ectos from dropping below 20s and caused permanent hair contracts to drop from 4000g to 1500g.

All that ANet did was reintroduced the permanent hair contracts and provided another use for ectos, generating T6 dust. Which in turn helped forging more T6 mats from T5 mats.

TheModernProphet.9024:

That makes sense. I agree that the game mechanics, such as RNG-based drops, do not control the specific quantity of items available on the market, as players determine the quantity of items supplied on the markets through their efforts in playing the content, receiving the items as rewards, and putting what they want to sell on the market.

However, the inherent control over game mechanics by the developers (ie through setting of drop-rates and such) seemed to be monopolistic level of market control, which is natural in a video game.

I agree with you to a point, though I think the problem here is that you may be using “monopolistic” in a more colloquial sense of the word. Certainly they have control over all of it, but most of the time, the changes they make are to ensure that the market stays in a functioning state (one that is close to perfect competition).

Their adjustments to the market generally don’t have anything to do with direct profit to themselves (unless you count keeping the game desirable as profit). Whereas with a monopoly, the entity in question can essentially charge ridiculous prices on goods/services without recourse.

I do think there are a few examples of this in GW2 that are analogous to the behavior of a monopolistic company. For example, the recent situation with Gwynefyrdd. Because the item is account bound, acquisition of the item is completely under Anet’s control through drop rates. Players cannot go to sources other than the bags (which have an absurdly low drop rate).

Again though, Anet arguably doesn’t benefit from this in any clear monetary way. Certainly the choice helped ensure a strong flow/exchange of ToT bags, but there is no evidence that the company directly profited from it.

Rez.8016:

Diminishing returns, time-gated crafting, static number of resource nodes with set refresh rate, class based loot, and I’m sure other mechanics that I cant think of off the top of my head all prevent the market from ramping up supply of many goods.

Time gating in general, in its various guises, is the basic mechanic used to control/ prevent the markets natural urge to increase supply, and this occurs a lot throughout the game even in the non gold currency areas of the game (dungeon token, fractals, guild commendations, laurels, etc etc).

I do see your point. However, I would argue that things like time gating, node refresh, etc., are more accurate to real life generation of supply and thus are closer to what a real market would look like (farms, for example – in real life – are technically “time-gated” on crop-growing). And as I said to Prophet above, it is debatable that Anet directly profits such mechanics (unless you count keeping the game desirable as profit).

The restrictions they have are almost invariably designed to keep the market functioning in a way that is similar to perfect competition.

If you feel you have evidence for why this isn’t the case, I’d be happy to consider it.

Ohoni.6057:

I think it’s easier to compare their position in the economy to a God-Game player, like someone playing Black and White, and we’re those little dudes wandering around, with theoretically free will to do as we like.

That in the end is true for every game, since we just play in a world that “they” have created.

Behellagh.1468:

All that ANet did was reintroduced the permanent hair contracts and provided another use for ectos, generating T6 dust. Which in turn helped forging more T6 mats from T5 mats.

Wanze.8410:

I never said players control faucets but they are 100% responsible for prices of items. Even if ectos wont drop anymore, players still set the prices.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

If players do not control the faucets then they are not 100% responsible for the price of items.

Anet has the ability to lower the price of an item to 0 or raise it by decreasing drop rates or making it more useful. No one else can introduce new permanent hair contracts.

It does not matter if the monopolizer distributes the goods to a 3rd party (the players) instead of selling the items themselves.

But as I said, this is not really a useful discussion since every game is like this. The question is whether or not players are satisfied with how the artificial economy is run.

Gewd.8125:

Behellagh.1468:

All that ANet did was reintroduced the permanent hair contracts and provided another use for ectos, generating T6 dust. Which in turn helped forging more T6 mats from T5 mats.

Wanze.8410:

I never said players control faucets but they are 100% responsible for prices of items. Even if ectos wont drop anymore, players still set the prices.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

If players do not control the faucets then they are not 100% responsible for the price of items.

Anet has the ability to lower the price of an item to 0 or raise it by decreasing drop rates or making it more useful. No one else can introduce new permanent hair contracts.

It does not matter if the monopolizer distributes the goods to a 3rd party (the players) instead of selling the items themselves.

But as I said, this is not really a useful discussion since every game is like this. The question is whether or not players are satisfied with how the artificial economy is run.

Players might be influenced by the scarcity or usefulness of the item but they are still 100% responsible for prices as they are the only ones buying and selling them.

The price players set is almost entirely influenced by Arena.net.

Just because Arena.net doesn’t sell ectos for gold doesn’t mean they are being given away for free.

They are being sold for playing time, aka labor at a rate which they can control on a whim.

Gewd.8125:

The price players set is almost entirely influenced by Arena.net.

Just because Arena.net doesn’t sell ectos for gold doesn’t mean they are being given away for free.

They are being sold for playing time, aka labor at a rate which they can control on a whim.

The players still decide which amount of payment for their labour they seem fit, so they ultimatively set the price.

Anet could decide to make ectos not drop anymore from salvages, making them unattainable in the future, this would presumably make their value go up.
But at the same time, the player base could decide that they dont want ectos anymore, making ectos available on the tp at 1c over vendor value.

Players set the price.

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

The price players set is almost entirely influenced by Arena.net.

Just because Arena.net doesn’t sell ectos for gold doesn’t mean they are being given away for free.

They are being sold for playing time, aka labor at a rate which they can control on a whim.

The players still decide which amount of payment for their labour they seem fit, so they ultimatively set the price.

Anet could decide to make ectos not drop anymore from salvages, making them unattainable in the future, this would presumably make their value go up.
But at the same time, the player base could decide that they dont want ectos anymore, making ectos available on the tp at 1c over vendor value.

Players set the price.

The collective “player” could no more decide that then a tree could decide it wanted to grow in a desert instead of in a rainforest.

Players do not have free will to decide what the prices should be, the market decides for them based on a huge number of variables and many equations. It is very hard to fully calculate all those variables, but there are many models out there that could get reasonably close. Player choice is just an illusion in this kind of market. The value of ectos is determined by the supply, the demand, the time it takes to obtain an ecto, and the value of labor in Tyria. Those are the major variables, though there are hundreds of variables that go into producing the demand variable.

You could roughly plot the price of an item just by using:

(demand*time*labor value)/supply

Doesn’t matter what any individual player thinks, the market will still respond in the same way.

Anet adds in a use for ectos, demand goes up, prices go up. Anet stops ectos from dropping, supply going down, price of ectos goes up. The player has no choice in the matter.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

The price players set is almost entirely influenced by Arena.net.

Just because Arena.net doesn’t sell ectos for gold doesn’t mean they are being given away for free.

They are being sold for playing time, aka labor at a rate which they can control on a whim.

The players still decide which amount of payment for their labour they seem fit, so they ultimatively set the price.

Anet could decide to make ectos not drop anymore from salvages, making them unattainable in the future, this would presumably make their value go up.
But at the same time, the player base could decide that they dont want ectos anymore, making ectos available on the tp at 1c over vendor value.

Players set the price.

The collective “player” could no more decide that then a tree could decide it wanted to grow in a desert instead of in a rainforest.

Players do not have free will to decide what the prices should be, the market decides for them based on a huge number of variables and many equations. It is very hard to fully calculate all those variables, but there are many models out there that could get reasonably close. Player choice is just an illusion in this kind of market. The value of ectos is determined by the supply, the demand, the time it takes to obtain an ecto, and the value of labor in Tyria. Those are the major variables, though there are hundreds of variables that go into producing the demand variable.

You could roughly plot the price of an item just by using:

(demand*time*labor value)/supply

Doesn’t matter what any individual player thinks, the market will still respond in the same way.

Anet adds in a use for ectos, demand goes up, prices go up. Anet stops ectos from dropping, supply going down, price of ectos goes up. The player has no choice in the matter.

Just because the playerbase reacts predictably, doesnt mean that they dont have a choice.

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

The price players set is almost entirely influenced by Arena.net.

Just because Arena.net doesn’t sell ectos for gold doesn’t mean they are being given away for free.

They are being sold for playing time, aka labor at a rate which they can control on a whim.

The players still decide which amount of payment for their labour they seem fit, so they ultimatively set the price.

Anet could decide to make ectos not drop anymore from salvages, making them unattainable in the future, this would presumably make their value go up.
But at the same time, the player base could decide that they dont want ectos anymore, making ectos available on the tp at 1c over vendor value.

Players set the price.

You are missing the point. If Anet wanted to, they could make it so ectos could only be sold in the gemstore and there would be nothing you could do about it.

There’s a difference between having a monopoly, and exploiting as much as possible.

Anet does not take full control of the market but manipulating the drop rate to cause prices to inflate or deflate by 200% with a few keystrokes is still a considerable use of the monopoly.

Players can have some control over the price, but it pales in comparison to anet’s ability to set the drop rate.

The minimum cost of labor is governed by farming DR (controlled by Anet), how fun the game is (mostly controlled by Anet), electricity and computer operation costs (hardly controllable by the player), value of ecto relative to gold (largely controlled by Anet).

Gewd.8125:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

The price players set is almost entirely influenced by Arena.net.

Just because Arena.net doesn’t sell ectos for gold doesn’t mean they are being given away for free.

They are being sold for playing time, aka labor at a rate which they can control on a whim.

The players still decide which amount of payment for their labour they seem fit, so they ultimatively set the price.

Anet could decide to make ectos not drop anymore from salvages, making them unattainable in the future, this would presumably make their value go up.
But at the same time, the player base could decide that they dont want ectos anymore, making ectos available on the tp at 1c over vendor value.

Players set the price.

You are missing the point. If Anet wanted to, they could make it so ectos could only be sold in the gemstore and there would be nothing you could do about it.

There’s a difference between having a monopoly, and exploiting as much as possible.

Anet does not take full control of the market but manipulating the drop rate to cause prices to inflate or deflate by 200% with a few keystrokes is still a considerable use of the monopoly.

Players can have some control over the price, but it pales in comparison to anet’s ability to set the drop rate.

The minimum cost of labor is governed by farming DR (controlled by Anet), how fun the game is (mostly controlled by Anet), electricity and computer operation costs (hardly controllable by the player), value of ecto relative to gold (largely controlled by Anet).

I am not missing the point, you are just trying to argue something different, while i just state that prices are entirely set by players, a statement you still have to prove false.

If Ectos were only available in the gem store, players would still determine their price in gold through the gold/gem exchange.

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

The price players set is almost entirely influenced by Arena.net.

Just because Arena.net doesn’t sell ectos for gold doesn’t mean they are being given away for free.

They are being sold for playing time, aka labor at a rate which they can control on a whim.

The players still decide which amount of payment for their labour they seem fit, so they ultimatively set the price.

Anet could decide to make ectos not drop anymore from salvages, making them unattainable in the future, this would presumably make their value go up.
But at the same time, the player base could decide that they dont want ectos anymore, making ectos available on the tp at 1c over vendor value.

Players set the price.

You are missing the point. If Anet wanted to, they could make it so ectos could only be sold in the gemstore and there would be nothing you could do about it.

There’s a difference between having a monopoly, and exploiting as much as possible.

Anet does not take full control of the market but manipulating the drop rate to cause prices to inflate or deflate by 200% with a few keystrokes is still a considerable use of the monopoly.

Players can have some control over the price, but it pales in comparison to anet’s ability to set the drop rate.

The minimum cost of labor is governed by farming DR (controlled by Anet), how fun the game is (mostly controlled by Anet), electricity and computer operation costs (hardly controllable by the player), value of ecto relative to gold (largely controlled by Anet).

I am not missing the point, you are just trying to argue something different, while i just state that prices are entirely set by players, a statement you still have to prove false.

If Ectos were only available in the gem store, players would still determine their price in gold through the gold/gem exchange.

yes players can choose whatever price they want.
No players as a whole will not do so.
Its like me trapping someone in a house for 1 week, and only supplying them with bananas.
Sure they could eat the dandelions out in the front garden or tree bark, but they wont.

While it is literally true that people set the price, it is not actually true. By the same token you could say people decide the prices in monoplies, because they could simply refuse to buy.
Literally true, but for all intents and purposes, false.

To be a “monopoly,” you have to participate in the economy, something that ANet doesn’t do. OPEC (technically a “cartel”, but same idea) affects prices by controlling supply, but they make money by doing so. In contrast, ANet makes money by having a game that people enjoy playing, which requires them to have a fully-functioning, “reasonably fair” free-market economy.

Put another way, ANet meets only one of the conditions of a monopolist: they control supply (via the drop rate). They don’t meet any of the other conditions and therefore, Mr Smith’s terse answer of “no” is correct.

On a related note, what difference does it make to call ANet a monopoly? How does it help players to manage their in-game budgets? How does it help in understanding the in-game economy? How does it help those who are not TP-mavens to earn or save?

A model is only valuable if it helps us understand the relevant dynamics and apply that understanding to making things better (for ourselves or others). Labeling ANet (with a word that holds negative connotations for most of us) doesn’t succeed in either of those goals.

In short, I don’t think ANet meets the meaningful definition of the word, but even if it did, how would using that term help us (or them) make the game better?

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

The price players set is almost entirely influenced by Arena.net.

Just because Arena.net doesn’t sell ectos for gold doesn’t mean they are being given away for free.

They are being sold for playing time, aka labor at a rate which they can control on a whim.

The players still decide which amount of payment for their labour they seem fit, so they ultimatively set the price.

Anet could decide to make ectos not drop anymore from salvages, making them unattainable in the future, this would presumably make their value go up.
But at the same time, the player base could decide that they dont want ectos anymore, making ectos available on the tp at 1c over vendor value.

Players set the price.

You are missing the point. If Anet wanted to, they could make it so ectos could only be sold in the gemstore and there would be nothing you could do about it.

There’s a difference between having a monopoly, and exploiting as much as possible.

Anet does not take full control of the market but manipulating the drop rate to cause prices to inflate or deflate by 200% with a few keystrokes is still a considerable use of the monopoly.

Players can have some control over the price, but it pales in comparison to anet’s ability to set the drop rate.

The minimum cost of labor is governed by farming DR (controlled by Anet), how fun the game is (mostly controlled by Anet), electricity and computer operation costs (hardly controllable by the player), value of ecto relative to gold (largely controlled by Anet).

I am not missing the point, you are just trying to argue something different, while i just state that prices are entirely set by players, a statement you still have to prove false.

If Ectos were only available in the gem store, players would still determine their price in gold through the gold/gem exchange.

yes players can choose whatever price they want.
No players as a whole will not do so.
Its like me trapping someone in a house for 1 week, and only supplying them with bananas.
Sure they could eat the dandelions out in the front garden or tree bark, but they wont.

While it is literally true that people set the price, it is not actually true. By the same token you could say people decide the prices in monoplies, because they could simply refuse to buy.
Literally true, but for all intents and purposes, false.

If a monopoly exists, consumers cant decide the price by refusing to buy.

ANet tweaks production functions. This is unrelated to competitive vs monopolistic market structures. Tweaks to production functions can and will have an impact on prices, but this doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not a market is monopolized.

I get that people think that ANet tweaking production functions is bad in some way, but calling it a monopoly, and continuing to call it a monopoly, is just ensuring whatever point you’re trying to make remains unintelligible.

Yeah, what Ensign said. While it IS true that ANet does have the power to drastically change the trading landscape by altering the frequency of drops, it’s still up to the players to determine how much a particular item is worth. Not only that, but I think people also frequently underestimate just how wide the seller base is, even for very rare items like Precursors. It’s next to impossible for a single player (maybe even a cartel of players) to successfully corner a market thanks to random players selling their drops at any one time.

Is there perhaps cause for ANet to look at adjusting loot rarity/frequency? Maybe, but that’s an entirely separate issue from what the OP is suggesting.

Ensign.2189:

ANet tweaks production functions. This is unrelated to competitive vs monopolistic market structures. Tweaks to production functions can and will have an impact on prices, but this doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not a market is monopolized.

I get that people think that ANet tweaking production functions is bad in some way, but calling it a monopoly, and continuing to call it a monopoly, is just ensuring whatever point you’re trying to make remains unintelligible.

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

It doesn’t matter if Anet is not selling the items directly for gold. They are pricing the items in terms of playing time.

They have absolute control over every item in the game.

How much they choose to exert this control is not what the original thread was about and the price certainly isn’t 100% controlled by players.

Wanze.8410:

If a monopoly exists, consumers cant decide the price by refusing to buy.

If Anet decides to set the price of ectos to 9000g, which they have the ability to do so, you can refuse to buy it all you want and it will still be 9000g. No one else has this power, and thus they do have a “monopoly”.

Again, this term was never meant to apply to a game where someone has complete control over the entire “universe” but it fits all the other defining characteristics.

I’m not sure if the OP is suggesting anet benefits from market manipulation or just pointing out that they have done it. Arguing over the phrase “setting the price” is just a matter of semantics. Cutting supply in half without reducing demand is setting the price.

Well, the developer of every mmorpg out there determine the drop rate. They create the virtual world which they envision. And they have full control of drop rate.

That’s a fact, but I’m not sure why the OP make it sounds like it is so controversial.

If I look at the matter strictly from an in-game TP perspective, Anet is not a “monopoly”. For any item there are multiple competing sellers, and Anet isn’t even a buyer/seller in the TP, the transactions are strictly between players.

But if I look at things from an “outer” perspective, viewing the system as a “market” where the MMO developer is “selling” items for some cost in terms of player time/effort, then I could argue that Anet has a monopoly on “items usable in Guild Wars 2”.

To elaborate: this is not Skyrim, I can’t just add my own modded content to the game to introduce “competition” with the official content. If players could add custom items to the game with no restrictions, I would expect the average price of “fancy items” to take a big plunge (perhaps to a price close to 0).

Of course, you could argue against that idea in various senses; for example, there are competing MMOs, and I am theoretically free to make a competing MMO that resembles GW2. Not exactly the same thing, but perhaps close substitutes.

In any case, I want to leave the following general sentiment here:

I think it’s more fruitful to look at this sort of topic in terms of “game design/balancing” and “fun”, instead of trying to draw conclusions by making faulty, imprecise analogies that attempt to equate game systems with real-world structures.