Guild Wars 2

Zaxares.5419:

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.

Imagine for the moment that ANet had complete and perfect information about how every single one of their players would respond to any potential market change – how their playing time and aggregate spending would change from differences in wealth, how they would substitute goods as rates changed, absolutely everything.

Imagine that, making use of this information, ANet went and changed their drop rates, their crafting and forge recipes, to manipulate their players exactly how they wanted and to put equilibrium prices precisely where they intend them all to be.

In this wholly fanciful situation, the market structure would still not be a monopoly – because all of this has nothing at all to do with monopoly. When you say monopoly you’re not just referring to a specific economic concept, you’re invoking a whole lot of implications, positive and negative, that simply are not true in GW2.

As long as prices are ultimately determined by markets featuring several buyers and sellers interacting freely, discovering competitive prices in the process, the market structure will be a free market – regardless of what ANet does to drop rates or crafting recipes.

Ensign.2189:

Zaxares.5419:

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.

Imagine for the moment that ANet had complete and perfect information about how every single one of their players would respond to any potential market change – how their playing time and aggregate spending would change from differences in wealth, how they would substitute goods as rates changed, absolutely everything.

Imagine that, making use of this information, ANet went and changed their drop rates, their crafting and forge recipes, to manipulate their players exactly how they wanted and to put equilibrium prices precisely where they intend them all to be.

In this wholly fanciful situation, the market structure would still not be a monopoly – because all of this has nothing at all to do with monopoly. When you say monopoly you’re not just referring to a specific economic concept, you’re invoking a whole lot of implications, positive and negative, that simply are not true in GW2.

As long as prices are ultimately determined by markets featuring several buyers and sellers interacting freely, discovering competitive prices in the process, the market structure will be a free market – regardless of what ANet does to drop rates or crafting recipes.

i dont think anet is monopoly, but we definately dont have a free market.

Wanze.8410:

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.

That’s not entirely true because there are items that cannot be made that are being sold on the TP (like the Permanent Hair Contract).

In an open economy, when a company makes something that is in high demand the price will rise until it reaches a balance where price and demand intersect. If the price rises, demand is lessened and the other way around. If a company has a temporary monopoly and gouges it’s customers, another company can step into the market and offer a competing product for a lower price, forcing the first company to lower it’s price or go out of business.

No one but ArenaNet can “make” a permanent hair contract (or a few other things) meaning they have a monopoly and affect the prices based on what they “supply” the game.

Gewd.8125:

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.

You can link that all you want because it doesnt prove anything.
Anet doesnt have the ability to set the price of ectos to 9000g, either. By adjusting its droprate, gold faucets and ecto usability, they might be able to get the price of ectos in the ballpark of 9000g but it still takes a player to list an ecto at 9000g.

The players set the price.

There are currently loads of items to which Anet directly sets the prices of. They can and do directly set some prices and all others they manage to a large degree. How much is that carved bone spoon worth? 10 silver? I wonder why….

Essence Snow.3194:

There are currently loads of items to which Anet directly sets the prices of. They can and do directly set some prices and all others they manage to a large degree. How much is that carved bone spoon worth? 10 silver? I wonder why….

If you havent noticed, we are talking about tradeable items on the tp.

In that case how much is that lvl 75-80 masterwork focus, scepter, spear, trident, warhorn, etc worth? Merchant value? Set by who?

You can keep trying to say that Anet doesn’t have a hand in setting prices, but that won’t make it true. Both Anet and players play their respective parts. The only difference is that Anet lays the framework and the players adhere to that framework.

Essence Snow.3194:

You can keep trying to say that Anet doesn’t have a hand in setting prices,

No one is saying that ANet has no influence on prices; John Smith’s job includes recommending changes to mechanics and rates that are designed to influence prices.

Instead, people are saying that ANet doesn’t constitute a “monopoly.”

More to the point, it’s not a useful term to use, as it doesn’t help the community. At best, it’s misleading. At worst, it distracts discussion away from things that ANet could do to improve the game (controversial or otherwise) and from things that the average player can do to improve their income.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Essence Snow.3194:

You can keep trying to say that Anet doesn’t have a hand in setting prices,

No one is saying that ANet has no influence on prices; John Smith’s job includes recommending changes to mechanics and rates that are designed to influence prices.

Instead, people are saying that ANet doesn’t constitute a “monopoly.”

More to the point, it’s not a useful term to use, as it doesn’t help the community. At best, it’s misleading. At worst, it distracts discussion away from things that ANet could do to improve the game (controversial or otherwise) and from things that the average player can do to improve their income.

Actually it’s what was said

Wanze.8410:

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.

Right there^ “prices are ENTIRELY set by players”

I was only responding to that…not the whole monopoly deal.

Wanze.8410:

If you havent noticed, we are talking about tradeable items on the tp.

Yeah, that is an important distinction.

The items which are bought and sold on the TP reach competitive prices and are fairly characterized as free market goods.

Items which can be sold on the TP, but have no demand at vendor prices, can be thought of best as subsidized goods; they are governed by market mechanisms above a certain price, but below that they are salable to a buyer of last resort at merchant prices.

Items that are only available from a vendor (cultural armor, for instance, or karma items) can be thought of as monopoly goods without it being highly misleading, though it’s still fairly off since monopolistic market structures still have prices that react to the market. It’s a lot more accurate to think of such goods as the output good in a production process taking as an input gold – this is more accurate since nothing involved in the transformation depends on market prices.

‘junk’ items can be thought of similarly – you can call them monopsonic if you like without being wildly off base, but more practically they’re production processes that take junk and return gold, irrespective of market prices.

As long as we’re talking about items being bought and sold on the TP, which is what the OP was referring to, it’s clear that competitive prices rule the day and what I’ve said previously applies. Other sets of items that have other restrictions for game reasons are not necessarily free market goods and are governed by other processes. You have to be clear about what items you’re talking about.

Essence Snow.3194:

In that case how much is that lvl 75-80 masterwork focus, scepter, spear, trident, warhorn, etc worth? Merchant value? Set by who?

You can keep trying to say that Anet doesn’t have a hand in setting prices, but that won’t make it true. Both Anet and players play their respective parts. The only difference is that Anet lays the framework and the players adhere to that framework.

All those weapons are listed on the tp by players, so they set the price.

That’s reaching since the only reason they are such is because Anet set the minimum. Before that it was shown that players would list below merchant value.

Reminds me of when Bill Clinton tried to explain lying by questioning what someone’s definition of “IS” was. Really reaching for straws.

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s reaching since the only reason they are such is because Anet set the minimum. Before that it was shown that players would list below merchant value.

Reminds me of when Bill Clinton tried to explain lying by questioning what someone’s definition of “IS” was. Really reaching for straws.

Their price is as low because players dont value them higher and set the price. If they could set the price below vendor value, they would still set the price.

I am not reaching for straws, if I claim that every price on the tp is set by players. Its a simple fact that no one could prove false yet.

Wanze.8410:

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s reaching since the only reason they are such is because Anet set the minimum. Before that it was shown that players would list below merchant value.

Reminds me of when Bill Clinton tried to explain lying by questioning what someone’s definition of “IS” was. Really reaching for straws.

Their price is as low because players dont value them higher and set the price. If they could set the price below vendor value, they would still set the price.

I am not reaching for straws, if I claim that every price on the tp is set by players. Its a simple fact that no one could prove false yet.

You just contradicted yourself. “If they could set the price” then “every price is set by players”.

Essence Snow.3194:

Wanze.8410:

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s reaching since the only reason they are such is because Anet set the minimum. Before that it was shown that players would list below merchant value.

Reminds me of when Bill Clinton tried to explain lying by questioning what someone’s definition of “IS” was. Really reaching for straws.

Their price is as low because players dont value them higher and set the price. If they could set the price below vendor value, they would still set the price.

I am not reaching for straws, if I claim that every price on the tp is set by players. Its a simple fact that no one could prove false yet.

You just contradicted yourself. “If they could set the price” then “every price is set by players”.

He was saying in that specific instance they would still be setting the price. He was simply acknowledging that anet does have some small measure in how far down items can be priced. I think this was in response to silk being sold to vendors way back when.

But the thing is…“would” does not mean they “are”. That’s pretty basic stuff.

Essence Snow.3194:

But the thing is…“would” does not mean they “are”. That’s pretty basic stuff.

Just because players arent able to list below vendor value doesnt mean that Anet is setting the price. Every single listing is still made by a player, setting the price on its own.

In this context we are talking about market prices not individual prices as the individual price will have no significant bearing unless that individual price comes from Anet.

Like I said you are trying to debate the definition of “IS”.

How does the application of a semantic term to the current economic system make any difference one way or another?

If the purpose is to PROVE that Anet has ultimate control over the economy of the game where they run the servers, I think common sense and a bit of, “DUH!” can accomplish that with much less posturing and wordy commentary.

Brother Grimm.5176:

How does the application of a semantic term to the current economic system make any difference one way or another?

If the purpose is to PROVE that Anet has ultimate control over the economy of the game where they run the servers, I think common sense and a bit of, “DUH!” can accomplish that with much less posturing and wordy commentary.

That seems to be clear to everyone except Wanze. We all know that Anet dictates the prices of things in the game because they set the drop rates, the demand, and the difficulty in obtaining items. Using those parameters players then sell the items at prices that they choose based on those factors. This happens in every online game, and is not a monopoly any more than mother nature has a monopoly on earth’s economy.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Brother Grimm.5176:

How does the application of a semantic term to the current economic system make any difference one way or another?

If the purpose is to PROVE that Anet has ultimate control over the economy of the game where they run the servers, I think common sense and a bit of, “DUH!” can accomplish that with much less posturing and wordy commentary.

That seems to be clear to everyone except Wanze. We all know that Anet dictates the prices of things in the game because they set the drop rates, the demand, and the difficulty in obtaining items. Using those parameters players then sell the items at prices that they choose based on those factors. This happens in every online game, and is not a monopoly any more than mother nature has a monopoly on earth’s economy.

I never tried to prove that anet does or is capable of anything, all I said is that its the players setting the prices on tp. It was other users that started arguing about how Anet can influence that price and tried to use that argument to somehow prove that players arent 100% responsible for every single price on the tp.

Wanze.8410:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Brother Grimm.5176:

How does the application of a semantic term to the current economic system make any difference one way or another?

If the purpose is to PROVE that Anet has ultimate control over the economy of the game where they run the servers, I think common sense and a bit of, “DUH!” can accomplish that with much less posturing and wordy commentary.

That seems to be clear to everyone except Wanze. We all know that Anet dictates the prices of things in the game because they set the drop rates, the demand, and the difficulty in obtaining items. Using those parameters players then sell the items at prices that they choose based on those factors. This happens in every online game, and is not a monopoly any more than mother nature has a monopoly on earth’s economy.

I never tried to prove that anet does or is capable of anything, all I said is that its the players setting the prices on tp. It was other users that started arguing about how Anet can influence that price and tried to use that argument to somehow prove that players arent 100% responsible for every single price on the tp.

I wonder why that might be…..

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.

Wanze I don’t think you know what a monopoly is even though it has been explained over and over to you.

A monopoly does not mean only one entity is allowed to sell a commodity ever, and sets the exact price for every transaction.

Let me explain it to you in terms of a real life situation so you cannot just keep arguing that players can put in a wide range of numbers on the TP so it is not a monopoly.

Take the De Beers diamond monopoly, a favorite econ 101 example. They set a minimum price by selling most of the world’s diamonds to a few companies. These companies are then free to set whatever price they want on top of that.

Does this mean that De Beers is not a monopoly because the wholesalers are allowed to add whatever they want over the price? The answer is a resounding no. If you disagree with this statement then I really cannot help you.

Let’s review GW2 in comparison.

• Does Anet set a price floor? Yes, you cannot sell below vendor.
• Does Anet control the supply of items? Yes, they control the drop rate.
• Does Anet sell items? Yes. If it is not for gold, it is sold for playing time. Just because it is a different currency of exchange does not exclude it from being a monopoly.

Gewd.8125:

Wanze I don’t think you know what a monopoly is even though it has been explained over and over to you.

A monopoly does not mean only one entity is allowed to sell a commodity ever, and sets the exact price for every transaction.

Let me explain it to you in terms of a real life situation so you cannot just keep arguing that players can put in a wide range of numbers on the TP so it is not a monopoly.

Take the De Beers diamond monopoly, a favorite econ 101 example. They set a minimum price by selling most of the world’s diamonds to a few companies. These companies are then free to set whatever price they want on top of that.

Does this mean that De Beers is not a monopoly because the wholesalers are allowed to add whatever they want over the price? The answer is a resounding no. If you disagree with this statement then I really cannot help you.

Let’s review GW2 in comparison.

• Does Anet set a price floor? Yes, you cannot sell below vendor.
• Does Anet control the supply of items? Yes, they control the drop rate.
• Does Anet sell items? Yes. If it is not for gold, it is sold for playing time. Just because it is a different currency of exchange does not exclude it from being a monopoly.

I never disputed what a monopoly is and if Anet has one on tradeable goods because JS gave the answer to that.
All i did was stating that players set the price for all tradeable items on the TP.

A mayor difference between de beers and anet is that de beers holds ownership over the ressources it mines and then sells, Anet does not.

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

Wanze I don’t think you know what a monopoly is even though it has been explained over and over to you.

A monopoly does not mean only one entity is allowed to sell a commodity ever, and sets the exact price for every transaction.

Let me explain it to you in terms of a real life situation so you cannot just keep arguing that players can put in a wide range of numbers on the TP so it is not a monopoly.

Take the De Beers diamond monopoly, a favorite econ 101 example. They set a minimum price by selling most of the world’s diamonds to a few companies. These companies are then free to set whatever price they want on top of that.

Does this mean that De Beers is not a monopoly because the wholesalers are allowed to add whatever they want over the price? The answer is a resounding no. If you disagree with this statement then I really cannot help you.

Let’s review GW2 in comparison.

• Does Anet set a price floor? Yes, you cannot sell below vendor.
• Does Anet control the supply of items? Yes, they control the drop rate.
• Does Anet sell items? Yes. If it is not for gold, it is sold for playing time. Just because it is a different currency of exchange does not exclude it from being a monopoly.

I never disputed what a monopoly is and if Anet has one on tradeable goods because JS gave the answer to that.
All i did was stating that players set the price for all tradeable items on the TP.

A mayor difference between de beers and anet is that de beers holds ownership over the ressources it mines and then sells, Anet does not.

I just explained why that is and you ignored most of it as usual.

Anet holds ownership over the resources, and “sells” them to players in exchange for playing time. No one else can provide additional ectos outside of Anet’s rules governing ecto creation rates.

The reason John Smith says no is because monopolies refer to companies and governments, not to entities that control the entire universe.

So I went back to see what you are originally arguing about since you claim differently.

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

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.

Where did I say that Anet listed a single ecto or contract on the TP?

Any rational person would admit that Anet was the base cause for these price changes. It makes no difference that players are able to fiddle with the final number on an individual basis.

If players try to list under the price Anet is nudging the market towards, they will run out of supply. If they list over it, then they will never sell.

I don’t know how you can argue otherwise and if you cannot admit this, then there is no more rational discussion to be had here.

Gewd.8125:

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

Wanze I don’t think you know what a monopoly is even though it has been explained over and over to you.

A monopoly does not mean only one entity is allowed to sell a commodity ever, and sets the exact price for every transaction.

Let me explain it to you in terms of a real life situation so you cannot just keep arguing that players can put in a wide range of numbers on the TP so it is not a monopoly.

Take the De Beers diamond monopoly, a favorite econ 101 example. They set a minimum price by selling most of the world’s diamonds to a few companies. These companies are then free to set whatever price they want on top of that.

Does this mean that De Beers is not a monopoly because the wholesalers are allowed to add whatever they want over the price? The answer is a resounding no. If you disagree with this statement then I really cannot help you.

Let’s review GW2 in comparison.

• Does Anet set a price floor? Yes, you cannot sell below vendor.
• Does Anet control the supply of items? Yes, they control the drop rate.
• Does Anet sell items? Yes. If it is not for gold, it is sold for playing time. Just because it is a different currency of exchange does not exclude it from being a monopoly.

I never disputed what a monopoly is and if Anet has one on tradeable goods because JS gave the answer to that.
All i did was stating that players set the price for all tradeable items on the TP.

A mayor difference between de beers and anet is that de beers holds ownership over the ressources it mines and then sells, Anet does not.

I just explained why that is and you ignored most of it as usual.

Anet holds ownership over the resources, and “sells” them to players in exchange for playing time. No one else can provide additional ectos outside of Anet’s rules governing ecto creation rates.

The reason John Smith says no is because monopolies refer to companies and governments, not to entities that control the entire universe.

So I went back to see what you are originally arguing about since you claim differently.

Wanze.8410:

Gewd.8125:

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.

Where did I say that Anet listed a single ecto or contract on the TP?

Any rational person would admit that Anet was the base cause for these price changes. It makes no difference that players are able to fiddle with the final number on an individual basis.

If players try to list under the price Anet is nudging the market towards, they will run out of supply. If they list over it, then they will never sell.

I don’t know how you can argue otherwise and if you cannot admit this, then there is no more rational discussion to be had here.

I havent come across a single item listed on the tp that you can directly purchase with labor, only gold.
How much labor does an ecto cost exactly? As Anet can only charge labor for an item and every player values his labour differently, the player sets the gold price.

Gods People!

ANet runs the game world. They control coin, items, recipes, salvage rates and forge outcomes. On a lot of items they set a minimum selling price on the TP by setting the vendor buy price.

But once they opened to world to us, the players, we controlled how much we are willing to pay on the TP for any item, bar the minimum selling price. Demand is created by collective belief of usefulness of an item or appearance if it has a cosmetic portion to it.

ANet didn’t release a dozen plus stat combos on weapons knowing that “conventional wisdom” would tell us that Berserker was the “best”. Just as they created the dozen plus weapon types and all their actions and the eight professions for us to choose from. They put all of that out there for us to explore and experiment with and collectively we decided what was in demand.

Now being the world’s true Gods, they can adjust items in an attempt to make some more and other less popular. Stimulate demand in an attempt to remove the glut of some items by introducing other uses for that item. Provide alternate means to acquire certain items to improve supply.

But their interference in the market is infrequent and indirect. They don’t fix prices. They don’t flood the marker with items as another “seller”. While they control the faucets of the world’s economy, the equilibrium of where the prices settle at is entirely our domain.

Behellagh.1468:

But their interference in the market is infrequent and indirect. They don’t fix prices. They don’t flood the marker with items as another “seller”. While they control the faucets of the world’s economy, the equilibrium of where the prices settle at is entirely our domain.

They don’t have to flood the market as another seller to have a major impact on the prices because every seller gets their items from Anet.

Whether they control the market with method X or method Y does not change the fact that the vast majority of the price change was caused by Anet.

Essence Snow.3194:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Essence Snow.3194:

You can keep trying to say that Anet doesn’t have a hand in setting prices,

No one is saying that ANet has no influence on prices; John Smith’s job includes recommending changes to mechanics and rates that are designed to influence prices.

Instead, people are saying that ANet doesn’t constitute a “monopoly.”

More to the point, it’s not a useful term to use, as it doesn’t help the community. At best, it’s misleading. At worst, it distracts discussion away from things that ANet could do to improve the game (controversial or otherwise) and from things that the average player can do to improve their income.

Actually it’s what was said

Wanze.8410:

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.

Right there^ “prices are ENTIRELY set by players”

I was only responding to that…not the whole monopoly deal.

Yes, Wanze is correct: prices are set by players. At best, ANet merely influences the conditions under which players make those decisions — that’s not the same as setting prices. That distinction is significant in the context of the OP: monopolies set prices, not just influence them. (They influence secondary and tertiary markets, but they aren’t a monopoly in those markets.)

(Minor point: ANet has set the floor pricing for items in two ways: through the vendor price and by preventing TP sales for less than vendor +~18%. But again, that only influences the prices; nothing stops players from offering more.)

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Essence Snow.3194:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Essence Snow.3194:

You can keep trying to say that Anet doesn’t have a hand in setting prices,

No one is saying that ANet has no influence on prices; John Smith’s job includes recommending changes to mechanics and rates that are designed to influence prices.

Instead, people are saying that ANet doesn’t constitute a “monopoly.”

More to the point, it’s not a useful term to use, as it doesn’t help the community. At best, it’s misleading. At worst, it distracts discussion away from things that ANet could do to improve the game (controversial or otherwise) and from things that the average player can do to improve their income.

Actually it’s what was said

Wanze.8410:

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.

Right there^ “prices are ENTIRELY set by players”

I was only responding to that…not the whole monopoly deal.

Yes, Wanze is correct: prices are set by players. At best, ANet merely influences the conditions under which players make those decisions — that’s not the same as setting prices. That distinction is significant in the context of the OP: monopolies set prices, not just influence them. (They influence secondary and tertiary markets, but they aren’t a monopoly in those markets.)

(Minor point: ANet has set the floor pricing for items in two ways: through the vendor price and by preventing TP sales for less than vendor +~18%. But again, that only influences the prices; nothing stops players from offering more.)

What’s the deal with ya’ll and contradicting yourselves in the same posts?

Essence Snow.3194:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Essence Snow.3194:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Essence Snow.3194:

You can keep trying to say that Anet doesn’t have a hand in setting prices,

No one is saying that ANet has no influence on prices; John Smith’s job includes recommending changes to mechanics and rates that are designed to influence prices.

Instead, people are saying that ANet doesn’t constitute a “monopoly.”

More to the point, it’s not a useful term to use, as it doesn’t help the community. At best, it’s misleading. At worst, it distracts discussion away from things that ANet could do to improve the game (controversial or otherwise) and from things that the average player can do to improve their income.

Actually it’s what was said

Wanze.8410:

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.

Right there^ “prices are ENTIRELY set by players”

I was only responding to that…not the whole monopoly deal.

Yes, Wanze is correct: prices are set by players. At best, ANet merely influences the conditions under which players make those decisions — that’s not the same as setting prices. That distinction is significant in the context of the OP: monopolies set prices, not just influence them. (They influence secondary and tertiary markets, but they aren’t a monopoly in those markets.)

(Minor point: ANet has set the floor pricing for items in two ways: through the vendor price and by preventing TP sales for less than vendor +~18%. But again, that only influences the prices; nothing stops players from offering more.)

What’s the deal with ya’ll and contradicting yourselves in the same posts?

No contradiction here, even if Anet establishes the vendor value, its still 100% player choice to sell at that price on the tp.

The classic never ending loophole debate just running in circle.

Crowd 1: Anet set the drop rate…. Crowd 2: But player set the price!!!!

Crowd 2: The player set the price… Crowd 1: But Anet set the drop rate!!!

I dont’ know what people is arguing. Anet set the drop rate. Players set the price

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.

The solution is to work with what you have and turn it to your advantage.

Open both doors and hide in the space behind one of them.

I honestly think that we should have a policy where only people who understand economics and business are allowed to debate. Claiming “monopolies” because Anet owns the game is political spinning the definition to fit one’s argument. It’s like people just Google’d the word, took the meaning, and sought similarities to try and attack BL traders.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Brother Grimm.5176:

How does the application of a semantic term to the current economic system make any difference one way or another?

If the purpose is to PROVE that Anet has ultimate control over the economy of the game where they run the servers, I think common sense and a bit of, “DUH!” can accomplish that with much less posturing and wordy commentary.

That seems to be clear to everyone except Wanze. We all know that Anet dictates the prices of things in the game because they set the drop rates, the demand, and the difficulty in obtaining items. Using those parameters players then sell the items at prices that they choose based on those factors. This happens in every online game, and is not a monopoly any more than mother nature has a monopoly on earth’s economy.

Just because I KNOW they have ultimate control does not mean I believe they “set prices on everything”. Keep that tin-foil hat on your own head, thank you very much!

My point was this thread is pointless…..as in it doesn’t matter one way or another if any of you agree or disagree that the term “Monopoly” can be applied to this particular GAME economy.

(and the only post in this thread that didn’t waste bandwidth here is JS’s).

Could Anet manipulate the TP behind the scenes? Certainly.
Do I think they are (or would)? Nope (but never say NEVER….).

Brother Grimm.5176:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Brother Grimm.5176:

How does the application of a semantic term to the current economic system make any difference one way or another?

If the purpose is to PROVE that Anet has ultimate control over the economy of the game where they run the servers, I think common sense and a bit of, “DUH!” can accomplish that with much less posturing and wordy commentary.

That seems to be clear to everyone except Wanze. We all know that Anet dictates the prices of things in the game because they set the drop rates, the demand, and the difficulty in obtaining items. Using those parameters players then sell the items at prices that they choose based on those factors. This happens in every online game, and is not a monopoly any more than mother nature has a monopoly on earth’s economy.

Just because I KNOW they have ultimate control does not mean I believe they “set prices on everything”. Keep that tin-foil hat on your own head, thank you very much!

My point was this thread is pointless…..as in it doesn’t matter one way or another.

90% of the thread in this forum are worthless, no point trying to fight against people who think they are important.

Supply can be influenced by drop rates. We know from the past of the game that something caused too much of one thing drop a lot more than it should or was supposed to and caused the price of the item to bottom out on the trading post. Adjustments to those items dropping in lesser quantities per time they dropped or dropped with lesser frequency cut the supply back to the more of what was expected amounts. But player activity is the other half of the equation for supply. If enough people react to a change in drop rates good or bad the supply can go up or down accordingly depending on if they are farming more or less than before for whatever.

The only time where drop rate adjustments would be widely received on the negative side would be if they were cut back to the extreme causing huge rise in price that can’t be well countered by players farming efforts. For example, I farmed dungeons for 8 weeks straight. The same dungeons every night. At the end of each night for the first 6 weeks after salvaging nearly everything that dropped, opening all bags, etc I would have 25-35 of each tier 2-5 of cloth scrap (silk etc). The last two weeks i was getting none at all. Even though the gear types and ranges hadn’t changed with any significance.

After confirming with a lot of other players they had the same experience and seeing a huge spike in prices of all of those tiers over the same time period the drops severely lacked, the conclusion was the drop rates either intentionally or due to a bug were severely lowered. And because the prices are still high and the holloween event started right after those last two weeks of dungeon farming I can’t say if this is still the case. the holloween event caused quite a few items supply to shift down while the demand remained the same. But none of them to the degree we seen the couple weeks or so prior to the event starting with the cloth scraps.

I think it’s mostly wording. Monoploly and manipulation is sort of negative words. Some players get defensive if those words is used on GW2 since they are so passionate about GW2, they felt they need to defend it.

And the use of words such as set/control the price. People would argue Anet dont’ set the price, because players do. But anet control the drop rate, use of items which can change the price. So it is better to say anet control the price. Which some people still argue against it.

Arguing weather the economy is player driven, Anet influence. Or Anet driven, player influence is quite pointless.