I just watch this video on youtube about videogame economies. I though it was interesting because I think overall it's just a hobby and to see people to hand over 1000$ for a unique in game object is just insane to me. The cycle of improvements for videogames will be the down fall of any kind of virtual gaming economies.
Thanks for watching. Extra Credits, ironically enough, doesn't get enough credit by a long shot. You want to know anything valuable about the games industry, gaming or game design without actually studying books on the subject, you watch their videos.
I have to agree with Valve's approach (a la Dota 2.) Let people pay oodles of money for things that don't affect the game. Who cares how expensive it is? If someone out there really wants to pay $90 for an exclusive mytho-legend-rary golden half-monkey half-roshan courier, so what? They get the dumb thing they want for a price that, apparently, they were willing to pay, and Valve gets to keep Dota 2 free-to-play without selling game-breaking items. Everyone benefits. FREE MARKET ECONOMY.
In that sense, I disagree with what was said about the Eve online monocle thing. Was it a misinterpretation of the supply/demand curve? Maybe, but that sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME for all sorts of products. How the hell is anyone supposed to know how much to charge for things without a point of reference? If anything, the monocle now serves as one of those points-of-reference for this kind of business model. And in any case, the price can always change down the road to meet a decreased (or increased) demand. So I think their comments on the monocle were more of a commentary on the vendor rather than the market system.
I just watch this video on youtube about videogame economies. I though it was interesting because I think overall it's just a hobby and to see people to hand over 1000$ for a unique in game object is just insane to me. The cycle of improvements for videogames will be the down fall of any kind of virtual gaming economies.
@Mozared: Go It just made me think that one of the latest Heroes of the Storm videos had mount skins costing U$25, lol.
@Mozared: Go Wow! That was a Great video. Definitely puts everything in perception. Thanks for sharing! :)
@SolidSC: Go
Thanks for watching. Extra Credits, ironically enough, doesn't get enough credit by a long shot. You want to know anything valuable about the games industry, gaming or game design without actually studying books on the subject, you watch their videos.
Don't forget about piracy. (sturs the pot)
I have to agree with Valve's approach (a la Dota 2.) Let people pay oodles of money for things that don't affect the game. Who cares how expensive it is? If someone out there really wants to pay $90 for an exclusive mytho-legend-rary golden half-monkey half-roshan courier, so what? They get the dumb thing they want for a price that, apparently, they were willing to pay, and Valve gets to keep Dota 2 free-to-play without selling game-breaking items. Everyone benefits. FREE MARKET ECONOMY.
In that sense, I disagree with what was said about the Eve online monocle thing. Was it a misinterpretation of the supply/demand curve? Maybe, but that sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME for all sorts of products. How the hell is anyone supposed to know how much to charge for things without a point of reference? If anything, the monocle now serves as one of those points-of-reference for this kind of business model. And in any case, the price can always change down the road to meet a decreased (or increased) demand. So I think their comments on the monocle were more of a commentary on the vendor rather than the market system.
http://www.propertyguru.com.sg/property-management-news/2014/3/37566/world-s-first-1m-virtual-property
Wow two beautiful videos