JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.
I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.
long term stability does not require the current design, in fact the current design seems to be one that will not be stable. Too much is tied to the values of one class of item.
What do you consider stable?
I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.
They are stable now, but should they become unstable, the whole economy will feel the ripples.
lets say some new high profile items come up that dont have the same aquisition, how will that effect the entire rest of the economy?
then there is the question, what happens when precursors reach the saturation point? when most who want them have them?
Precursors probably arent going to be the “thing” forever, and since that is the case, it may not be a good idea for so much of the economy to be dependent on these items.
You said the current design is/will be unstable, I was just wondering what design you were referring to.
it will be unstable any time precursors become unstable, this has happened for various reasons in the past, but not to an insane degree.
Essentially, for long term stability, you dont have too much tied to one item.
Well, good thing then that they are quite stable. And a good point for not making them widely and cheaply available.
any design where a single point of failure can collapse the whole thing is not considered stable.
One of the precise problems with an economy that is too heavily based on one good is being forced to continue practices that are bad for the world as a whole, in order to protect the economy.
I like how anet makes corrections to that exact issue over time. With the addition of Ascended weapon and armor crafting, event based mat sinks like the spinal backpieces for a short term adjustment etc. All that is for the purpose of balancing the whole economy but not for the benefit of precursors.
People here seem to mistake Precursors being a large/influential part of the economy(naturally, due to the high value) with being the “linchpin” that will destroy all aspects of it(the economy) if there are changes made in the acquisition of them(Pre’s). What you will see is all the various items associated with them dropping in price. This will hurt the people “Playing the game as intended”, which i grant is the vast majority, by lowering their income.
The complicated thing Anet is trying to do is figuring out a way to get an alternate method of acquisition of pre’s without killing the associated markets(wood,metal,t5,t6,etc…). This is to prevent the majority of their players, who go out and farm or grind or whatever and are not entitled, getting the shaft.
People are not leaving gw2 because of the difficulty of getting Pre’s, or if they have left solely because of that they are statistically insignificant to other reasons.
