Rares prices.... (27,000+ views)

[joker202]

I sold my red mask last week. I am wondering if I should buy it back or not.

 

 

 

I can't tell whats going to happen.

[Satenza]

 

Jagex objectives are to create a fun MMORPG and the second M in that abbreviation stands for Multiplayer, not for Maoism. If Jagex wanted to create stability they could just as well give every item a specific price (i.e. the high alch value) and assert that everyone has to pay the same price for the items. Where's the fun in that though?

 

 

 

 

Instead of plugging more items to keep peoples minds momentarily off rares, and keep them under control this more permanent solution is at the expense of all aspects of the game that were not monotonous. Its like you said, its like Jagex's team have been looking through their history books and have seen the value in some of the policies of China, the USSR and other totalitarian states. The sad thing is however, most people are completely disengaged with merchanting, play killing, dueling and so on. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s likely they will get away with it. Those players have always bored the hell out of me though; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like playing this game for the mundane purpose of getting levels with no risk. People are far to concerned with not losing their items and will probably see this as beneficial to them. Jagex has only made this dull and unexciting for those who did get anything more than levels out of it, which is too few to worry about.

[RichieMcD]

They will rise in the future. As more players come into the game and more players who hold them quit there will be a rise in demand with a fall in supply.

 

 

 

Im guessing jagex will allow the price to inflate as 14mil for a green mask isnt that hard to achieve.

 

 

 

As the trade limit comes into affect in January merchants can no longer merchant them.... therefore they are selling what they have which means there is more supply with the same demand. Therefore the prices fall. Prices arnt falling hugely.... they are falling by percentages. So obviously a phat will fall alot more than a santa will.

 

 

 

Jagex wont make them untradeable...the furthest they would go is not allowing inflation to happen which would mean eventually pretty much all rares will be bought up.

 

 

 

So its really just simple economics. :XD:

[Duke_Freedom]

Heh, I wasn't really looking to get into such an in-depth discussion about all these points as we seem to agree on pretty much everything (on a broad level at least) anyway, including the fact that merchants essentially exist due to imperfections in the market mechanisms and the several shortcommings of the GE you named (which are exactly the ones I already named in the thread about the GE I created a little while ago) as well.

 

 

 

The main reason why materials used to have larger (procentual) price ranges is indeed because of the trading volume and inability to buy and sell large quantities of materials in an easy manner - this is something the GE has solved now, and hence we see many merchants change their activities from active phat merchanting to passive GE merchanting.

 

 

 

I do disagree (partly) with the statement you seem to make that the GE has overtaken the merchant's role (although that might depend on what you really implied with that). Yes, the GE took away the problem of finding buyers and sellers of specific items, which created a merchanting opportunity and larger price ranges, by creating a central place where all trade could take place. However, merchanting is certainly not "dead": it has just changed. Good merchants quickly discovered the new opportunities and I would say merchanting is still as thriving as ever before, just differently. It is a shame that the GE has several shortcommings, but other than that it is a great system: for normal players as well as merchants.

 

 

 

the market is not tranquil and it should not be

 

 

 

Just to be clear: I wasn't arguing that the market should be tranquil, but just explaining why we are currently see devaluing rare prices (as that was the topic of this thread :P).

 

 

 

But if rares drop/[bleep]e because Jagex manipulates them, the market suffers together with rares. It's obvious that the first situation is going on right now, but as I said, there is no evidence that the second situation is taking place ATM.

 

 

 

There is no evidence, but there will probably be no "evidence" when it does happen either. I'm not saying Jagex is out there to go manipulate rare prices, again I was stating it is (one of the) speculations going around that is negatively impacting the prices of rares currently. What I am saying is that - if Jagex wants - they have all the necessary tools to do so in an easy and practically unverifiable manner, something you already somewhat concluded yourself as well, when you noted the extreme intransparency of the GE.

 

 

 

I have no other choice but to say that, with all due respect, absolute free market is not the best course of action in all circumstances. Saying that "it's not good because it's not free market" doesn't make logical sense; rather, you say "free market is good because it provides benefit X".

 

 

 

I didn't really get into detail indeed, and I'm certainly not trying to imply that an absolute free market is always the best - I can think of numerous reasons why it could not be that. But indeed, I don't believe 9/11 was one of them for the main reason that delayal of panic is rarely good. Delayal of the panic does not mean the panic is gone, it just continues to stack up over time. It is like a snowball rolling down from a mountain - you better try to stop it while it is still near the top, because once it is halfway on its road downwards it has gotten so big that you won't be able to stop it anymore at all.

 

 

 

And what would they have done if the terrorists continued to launch suicide attacks? All America proved by closing their stock markets during those days is that their economics system is so weak that it crashes at the first sight of ANY problems, even when they are, relatively, small. I believe the reason for that can be found in the fact that there are just way too many financial excesses in America - the current subprime crisis is just one example. The longer government organizations continue to delay them, the harder they will strike back and therefore I disagree with the notion that closing the stock markets back then was a good decision.

 

 

 

By the way if you want to continue this discussion it may be better if you or I create some topic about it on the off-topic board here or feel free to just pm me. :)

 

 

 

With respect to "where's the fun in that", I believe I repeatedly stated that Jagex's definition of "fun" is different from yours and mine, and is much more in line of what an eight-year-old kid considers "fun". :-)

 

The sad thing is however, most people are completely disengaged with merchanting, play killing, dueling and so on. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s likely they will get away with it.

 

 

 

Yup. You are both completely right about that, sadly.

 

 

 

They won't be a status symbol any more. Won't be as admirable to wear.

 

 

 

The recent updates do not change what the rares are and will continue to be, although their popularity may or may not diminish due to other external factors.

[Solidus_77]

It's all so simple, many of you have come close but none have explained it using income elasticity of demand.

 

 

 

Income elasticity of demand is basically stating that, for a change in price, by how much will demand change? If someone's income increases (for example if it doubles) and their consumption of a certain good increases by more than the income (following the example, it increases by more than double), then that good is defined as a "luxury good". If someone's income decreases but their consumption of a certain good increases, that good is defined as an "inferior good". If it follows the change in income, it's a normal good.

 

 

 

So luxury goods, or goods of conspicuous consumption (meaning they are bought for the purpose of showing off), are goods that a person buys more of when their income increases. Makes sense doesn't it? We don't just double every one of our belongings when our income doubles, we start to buy some specific items and we start to not buy others.

 

 

 

Although this categorization is relative to the person in question, I think it's safe to assume that for a high majority of the population, partyhats are considered luxury goods. This means that, for a change in income, partyhats will change by an even greater amount. This was already explicitely demonstrated by GWD. All partyhats jumped by up by 40m (and many other common "luxury goods" like all the rares) because a lot of people were getting richer.

 

 

 

The first time the rares dropped was when duel arena was released. Self explanitory really, dueling was a big way to get cash for a lot of people. Huge fall in income causes an even greater fall in the demand for phats which therefore cashes a fall in the price.

 

 

 

The second was with GE. Now I know, merchanting was NOT entirely killed, only the bad merchants were removed. However, despite their inability to adapt, they were getting an income and were now forced to do something that doesn't generate as much cash for them. Fall in income leads to even greater fall in price of phats which, again, leads to a fall in demand. It fluctuated at first due to many people suddenly selling lots of stuff, and it's been falling also a bit due to skillers getting (a bit) less money. (I say "a bit" because not having to wait around selling really compensates)

 

 

 

The third was 10th of december. Pking was another big moneymaker for many people. Removing it caused a lot of people's income to fall thus causing a fall in demand for phats which then lead to a fall in price for phats.

 

 

 

There you have it. There's no conspiracy, rumors, or manipulations behind the fall. Those are all very minor. The real reason for the fall in phats was the destruction of several forms of incomes.

 

 

 

First of january is the day when all merchants (even the good ones) will no longer be able to operate (unless someone has found a cunning way to do so that I havn't heard of) so expect another fall in the price of phats.

[qeltar]

 

Its like you said, its like Jagex's team have been looking through their history books and have seen the value in some of the policies of China, the USSR and other totalitarian states.

 

 

A bit melodramatic, no?

 

 

 

They've stated their reasons for acting as they have. I don't agree with all of it, but that's rather over the top.

 

 

The sad thing is however, most people are completely disengaged with merchanting, play killing, dueling and so on. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s likely they will get away with it.

 

 

What you and a few others don't get is that most players never WERE engaged with those activities. In fact, most players disliked merchants and PKers, and didn't care much about duelers only because they kept to themselves. So there's not nearly as much to "get away with" as you seem to think.

 

 

Those players have always bored the hell out of me though; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like playing this game for the mundane purpose of getting levels with no risk.

 

 

Well, that's a rather interesting thing to say in a discussion about rares. For ages everyone seemed to justify buying rares on the grounds that they will "always go up in value". Isn't THAT basically getting rich with no risk?

 

 

 

And before the recent changes, merchanting was ridiculously easy. Just as the old quip goes that a sign of the impending stock market crash in '29 was when the shoeshine boy was giving stock tips, I felt that merchanting was similarly due for changes when EVERY guide to making money pretty much flatly said that merchanting was the only way to go.

 

 

 

Now, I don't necessarily agree with Jagex's decisions about the GE and controlling the marketplace; in fact, I've argued against it. But if you think that most people are unhappy about the demise of merchanting in this game (to whatever extent it has demised) then you're deluding yourself.

 

 

People are far to concerned with not losing their items and will probably see this as beneficial to them.

 

 

It IS beneficial to them. And while you seem to denigrate people about being concerned over losing items, that's human nature. Why would people like losing things?

[qeltar]

 

So luxury goods, or goods of conspicuous consumption (meaning they are bought for the purpose of showing off), are goods that a person buys more of when their income increases. Makes sense doesn't it? We don't just double every one of our belongings when our income doubles, we start to buy some specific items and we start to not buy others.

 

 

True, but there's more to it than just that.

 

 

 

The game is undergoing a sea change at the moment. Many, if not most of the people who previously saw RuneScape as being largely about accumulating wealth, are now altering their focus or moving on to other games.

 

 

 

I believe rares are currently at a nexus of sorts. Depending on what further changes Jagex makes, they may either drop some more and then go back up again, or they may fade entirely, becoming a small niche market. They could continue to be high in price but simply not be as sought after as they were in the past.

[Solidus_77]

 

The game is undergoing a sea change at the moment. Many, if not most of the people who previously saw RuneScape as being largely about accumulating wealth, are now altering their focus or moving on to other games.

 

 

 

Correct, and the reason why they are doing it is because they no longer have as good an income as they previously did.

 

 

 

I believe rares are currently at a nexus of sorts. Depending on what further changes Jagex makes, they may either drop some more and then go back up again, or they may fade entirely, becoming a small niche market. They could continue to be high in price but simply not be as sought after as they were in the past.

 

 

 

That's all fine, but what I was explaining was why that happens and the reason why it happens is all connected to income.

[anonymouse_]

Time to stock up on some hats 8-)

[Solidus_77]

Time to stock up on some hats 8-)

 

 

 

That's exactly what NOT to do right now. :roll:

[quitthegame]

Solidus, you are correct in that lowering incomes is playing a part, although I don't think it's 100% responsible for the price behavior of rares. But your analysis is a little naive, pking, merchanting, and staking are all zero-sum endeavors, the money that people make in those ventures comes straight from someone else's pockets, which would nullify much of the effects you discuss. It seems to me that pkers and stakers were probably the main purchasers of RWT gold, so one could look at the former situation as a chain, where the gold starts with botting RWTers, who sell to bad pkers/stakers, who lose the money to good pkers/stakers, who then buy rares with their profits. The wealth concentrating effects of staking/pking/merching which you focus on are important, but it is also important to look at where that wealth is coming from.

[Satenza]

 

Its like you said, its like Jagex's team have been looking through their history books and have seen the value in some of the policies of China, the USSR and other totalitarian states.

 

 

A bit melodramatic, no?

 

 

 

They've stated their reasons for acting as they have. I don't agree with all of it, but that's rather over the top.

 

 

The sad thing is however, most people are completely disengaged with merchanting, play killing, dueling and so on. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s likely they will get away with it.

 

 

What you and a few others don't get is that most players never WERE engaged with those activities. In fact, most players disliked merchants and PKers, and didn't care much about duelers only because they kept to themselves. So there's not nearly as much to "get away with" as you seem to think.

 

 

Those players have always bored the hell out of me though; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like playing this game for the mundane purpose of getting levels with no risk.

 

 

Well, that's a rather interesting thing to say in a discussion about rares. For ages everyone seemed to justify buying rares on the grounds that they will "always go up in value". Isn't THAT basically getting rich with no risk?

 

 

 

And before the recent changes, merchanting was ridiculously easy. Just as the old quip goes that a sign of the impending stock market crash in '29 was when the shoeshine boy was giving stock tips, I felt that merchanting was similarly due for changes when EVERY guide to making money pretty much flatly said that merchanting was the only way to go.

 

 

 

Now, I don't necessarily agree with Jagex's decisions about the GE and controlling the marketplace; in fact, I've argued against it. But if you think that most people are unhappy about the demise of merchanting in this game (to whatever extent it has demised) then you're deluding yourself.

 

 

People are far to concerned with not losing their items and will probably see this as beneficial to them.

 

 

It IS beneficial to them. And while you seem to denigrate people about being concerned over losing items, that's human nature. Why would people like losing things?

 

 

 

So what are you actually disagreeing with? The analogy made, which is accurate? Are Jagex not trying to control the economy with recent updates?

 

 

 

The only disagreement i see is that you think of merchanting as a no risk venture which is not true. People buying one or two rares and holding them to make a long-term profit is not merchanting. The only form of long-term buying and selling that can really be considered merchanting is when a person or group of people decide to buy up one type of rare to deplete the number of sellers, thus rising the price. Merchanting is not an easy game unless you know what you're doing and then its still risky, having to speculate on the markets and so on. It requires a great deal of work with keeping up with the prices of the items you are using.

[qeltar]

 

The only disagreement i see is that you think of merchanting as a no risk venture which is not true.

 

 

It may not be true now, but it sure as hell was true two months ago. All you really had to do was get a couple of mil from somewhere (whether legally or illegally), then read a merchanting guide and spend lots of time on the forums and/or autotyping in World 2. It was virtually impossible NOT to make money through simple arbitrage.

 

 

People buying one or two rares and holding them to make a long-term profit is not merchanting.

 

 

Right -- it's speculating. And until recently, it too was very low risk, if there was any risk at all.

 

 

 

Which is why I think it is GOOD that rare prices have gone down. Not just because I don't like them, but because it's bad for there to be a "sure thing" big money maker in the game.

 

 

It requires a great deal of work with keeping up with the prices of the items you are using.

 

 

 

How much work does it take to stand around in W2 buying widgets for X gold pieces and then selling them on the forums for X+20% gold pieces? Not much.

[Dragonlordjl]

Speaking of problems with the GE, last I checked, Zamorak Godswords are going for around 38m in the GE. In world 2, they are going for 41-43m... Big difference. I am not sure about the other godswords, though.

[wakka102]

all I can say is that I'm glad I took the hint of the GE coming out in the BTS and sold my rare right away :)

[Randox]

If all rares follow the prices of santas, I lost 5-10% of my net worth today D:

 

 

 

I still think they'll go up again eventually as long as summoning isn't a money drain

 

 

 

But like stocks, you have neither gained or lost money untill you decide to sell.

 

 

 

Merchants were the rich people. What we may see in the future is that no one can afford rares at the old price.

[EugenyG]

How much work does it take to stand around in W2 buying widgets for X gold pieces and then selling them on the forums for X+20% gold pieces? Not much.

 

 

 

How much work is there to chop wood? Fish? Mine rocks? One way or another, you are sitting with your butt on a warm chair and drink coke. Merchanting actually required you to at least have relatively intense communication going on, and probably tired you out more than most other skills.

 

 

 

That being said, I'm not said at all that GE displaced that type of merchanting, because if it is able to provide a better service than merchants did, then it's a matter of progress, and the merchants should either adapt to the new rules or get out. Nobody is obliged to care for the merchants other than themselves, and if they can't make a living under the new systems, it's their own problem.

 

 

 

I _am_, however, _very_ angry at the RESTRICTIONS GE places, such as the 5% trade limit, slow adaptive system, and more of all the trade cap. It's one thing to not have to pay for your welfare, but having a regulation that limits what you freely should be able to do is something completely different. It's one thing not to give you food to eat so you earn your own, and another to lock you up so you can't earn anything.

[Satenza]

 

The only disagreement i see is that you think of merchanting as a no risk venture which is not true.

 

 

It may not be true now, but it sure as hell was true two months ago. All you really had to do was get a couple of mil from somewhere (whether legally or illegally), then read a merchanting guide and spend lots of time on the forums and/or autotyping in World 2. It was virtually impossible NOT to make money through simple arbitrage.

 

 

People buying one or two rares and holding them to make a long-term profit is not merchanting.

 

 

Right -- it's speculating. And until recently, it too was very low risk, if there was any risk at all.

 

 

 

Which is why I think it is GOOD that rare prices have gone down. Not just because I don't like them, but because it's bad for there to be a "sure thing" big money maker in the game.

 

 

It requires a great deal of work with keeping up with the prices of the items you are using.

 

 

 

How much work does it take to stand around in W2 buying widgets for X gold pieces and then selling them on the forums for X+20% gold pieces? Not much.

 

 

 

Right, but you are talking about "widgets". I am not talking about widgets, I am talking about rares.

[qeltar]

If all rares follow the prices of santas, I lost 5-10% of my net worth today D:

 

 

 

I still think they'll go up again eventually as long as summoning isn't a money drain

 

 

 

But like stocks, you have neither gained or lost money untill you decide to sell.

 

 

That's a myth. A commonly believed one, but a myth all the same.

 

 

 

If you're dealing with an item that is liquid (easily bought and sold) then you gain or lose money on it continuously as its price fluctuates, whether you decide to sell it or not.

 

 

How much work is there to chop wood? Fish? Mine rocks? One way or another, you are sitting with your butt on a warm chair and drink coke. Merchanting actually required you to at least have relatively intense communication going on, and probably tired you out more than most other skills.

 

 

I don't disagree. But you couldn't make millions an hour chopping wood or mining rocks. And that's what was out of balance.

 

 

I _am_, however, _very_ angry at the RESTRICTIONS GE places, such as the 5% trade limit, slow adaptive system, and more of all the trade cap.

 

 

Well, you know you're preaching to the choir on that score.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, Jagex let the calls for more freedom in trade go in one eye and out the other. Instead of relaxing the stupid price controls, they are instituting the Junta of Grand Exchange Micromanagement -- and we all know how well THAT is going to work.

 

 

 

P.S. Raw chompies are *STILL* under 90 gold pieces.

[Sly_Wizard]

You. Have. Apparently. Never. Tried. To. Merchant.

 

 

 

Whereas skilling requires... Well... No real skill (Click and watch your character do 99% of the work), merchanting requires interaction between players and the ability to adequately gauge market prices. It seems to me, Qeltar, that you're working under the assumption that the market only moved in one direction (Up) and, as such, merchanting was a 100%, sure fire way to earn profits on your investments when this simply isn't true. Markets fluctuate. The introduction of one item causes the price of another item to change. The introduction of a new skill causes items associated with another skill to change. New quests and areas causes the price change of items which are forseen to be included in the update. And so on and so forth. I ask everyone this who makes the claim that merchanting was 'an easy way to make money'. If it were so easy, then why didn't you do it?

 

 

 

It seems to me that your entire argument is that you shouldn't be able to make X-amount of money in X-amount of time. Well, why not? Who says? You've already let it be known that you don't play for money, so why should such a restriction be imposed on other players?

 

 

 

By the way, you don't gain or lose money on stocks until you decide to sell them. Prior to that, they're investments. Just saying ;)

[EugenyG]

You. Have. Apparently. Never. Tried. To. Merchant.

 

 

 

Whereas skilling requires... Well... No real skill (Click and watch your character do 99% of the work), merchanting requires interaction between players and the ability to adequately gauge market prices. It seems to me, Qeltar, that you're working under the assumption that the market only moved in one direction (Up) and, as such, merchanting was a 100%, sure fire way to earn profits on your investments when this simply isn't true. Markets fluctuate. The introduction of one item causes the price of another item to change. The introduction of a new skill causes items associated with another skill to change. New quests and areas causes the price change of items which are forseen to be included in the update. And so on and so forth. I ask everyone this who makes the claim that merchanting was 'an easy way to make money'. If it were so easy, then why didn't you do it?

 

 

 

It seems to me that your entire argument is that you shouldn't be able to make X-amount of money in X-amount of time. Well, why not? Who says? You've already let it be known that you don't play for money, so why should such a restriction be imposed on other players?

 

 

 

By the way, you don't gain or lose money on stocks until you decide to sell them. Prior to that, they're investments. Just saying ;)

 

 

 

There are different paths to "making a lot of money", and you can argue that a path is "fair" or not. I tend to sharply disagree with definitions of "fair" based on "niceness" and "equality" (especially when those are enforced by holier-than-thou attidutes), but tend to agree when looking from the perspective of balance.

 

 

 

The difference comes when you make a choice of how to change the situation. Merchants made more money than everyone else because they were providing a service for which people were willing to pay more than for other services. From the perspective of balance, merchants did not gain skills like other activities would gain, but you can argue that nontheless, merchants made a disproportionate amount of money.

 

 

 

Now, there are acceptable and NOT acceptable ways of changing the system so that merchants don't make that money.

 

 

 

The ACCEPTABLE way to restrict merchants' profit is to change the environment such that the players no longer need to pay merchants gross amounts of money for the service merchants provide. GE (not the trade cap part of it, but the fundamental nature of GE) fullfills that role. It is able to provide the liquidity and be the middle man in the producer-consumer supply chain, bypassing the merchant class. That's completely fine. Merchants used to be rich by providing a needed tool, the tool they provided is no longer needed, so they are not making as much money anymore. The system has been chagned to remove the disbalance, buyers/sellers get a better service for cheaper, and merchants don't get rich because players choose not to make them rich.

 

 

 

The NOT ACCEPTABLE way to restrict merchants' profit is by implementing an artificial barrier in the form of artificial price control on items (GE's micromanaged "adaptive pricing system", that while in principle is somewhat related to the real market price, is too slow to adapt, often has wrong initial prices, and subject to intransparancy and lack of public oversight). The other not acceptable item is, of course, the trade caps, which artificially limit flow of capital and thus the player's options.

 

 

 

Stopping someone from being rich by making players not want to pay them is acceptable and fair market practice. Stopping someone from being rich by tying their hands behind their back is NOT.

[qeltar]

 

Merchants made more money than everyone else because they were providing a service for which people were willing to pay more than for other services.

 

 

*Some* merchants made money this way. Others made it through deception, dishonesty, taking advantage of others' ignorance, price manipulation and worse.

 

 

 

Now, they weren't *all* like that. And in fact, I was one of the people who pointed out that some merchants earned their money through providing the liquidity and other services you mention. But let's be honest -- a lot of merchanting was little more than exploitation. And this is a *game* -- one oriented at kids, too -- it's not supposed to be a cut-throat miniature of big business.

 

 

From the perspective of balance, merchants did not gain skills like other activities would gain, but you can argue that nontheless, merchants made a disproportionate amount of money.

 

 

Yes, that's one of my points exactly.

 

 

Now, there are acceptable and NOT acceptable ways of changing the system so that merchants don't make that money.

 

 

Well... again.. this is a matter of opinion. And really, Jagex is entitled to have the highest-weighted opinion, since it IS their game.

 

 

The NOT ACCEPTABLE way to restrict merchants' profit is by implementing an artificial barrier in the form of artificial price control on items (GE's micromanaged "adaptive pricing system", that while in principle is somewhat related to the real market price, is too slow to adapt, often has wrong initial prices, and subject to intransparancy and lack of public oversight).

 

 

I don't like the limits either.. but I understand why Jagex put them in. What you aren't recognizing -- or perhaps I just missed it in some other discussion -- is that these changes were put into place in many cases BECAUSE of merchants. We've even seen a few of them here on this forum, openly and happily admitting that they manipulated prices, worked to "rip people off" and so forth.

 

 

 

Now, is it any surprise that players wouldn't be happy about that, or that Jagex wouldn't want it in their game?

 

 

 

My personal opinion is that merchants were not a *primary* target in the recent changes -- the main targets were RWTers, gamblers, bots and cheaters. Merchants (and rare speculators) were just a form of collateral damage that Jagex didn't really mind very much.

 

 

 

And frankly, neither have most of the rest of RS players.

[Lord_Omar_Iv]

Time to go to bed Runescapers, you let the Runescape Big Brother take complete control

[EugenyG]

Now, they weren't *all* like that. And in fact, I was one of the people who pointed out that some merchants earned their money through providing the liquidity and other services you mention. But let's be honest -- a lot of merchanting was little more than exploitation. And this is a *game* -- one oriented at kids, too -- it's not supposed to be a cut-throat miniature of big business.

 

 

 

I never objected at Jagex's moves against scamming, unlike many other "merchants". I thought and do think that complains against second trade window, ditch of "stupidity", town cryer, or any other means to make people safer, are not justified. And I read your article about the scammer mentality and fully agree that the wishes of those people should not be catered to. The statement "if you got scammed it is your own fault" (aka blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator) is fully invalid.

 

 

 

However, the minute Jagex's measures against scammers started resulting in heavy fallout for the honest people, my support for Jagex stops dead. For exactly the same reason, by the way, that I supported them originally - punish the guilty, not the innocent, and punishing the guilty does not justify you in collateral damage to the innocent in the process.

 

 

 

Well... again.. this is a matter of opinion. And really, Jagex is entitled to have the highest-weighted opinion, since it IS their game.

 

 

 

I always hated the mentality "it's their game so they have the prerogative of opinion".

 

 

 

Jagex does not have the highest weighted opinion. It's opinion does not outweigh you, me, or a level 3 noob. Everyone has an equal right to an opinion.

 

 

 

What Jagex DOES have is the legal right to enforce certain actions in RS, which are more likely to be based on their own opinion rather than ours. In turn, WE have the right to make certain actions on OUR part, notably pay for the game or not pay for it.

 

 

 

Jagex has legal and physical options to do certain things, we have legal and physical options to do other things. Their opinion is not "heavier" than ours in any way - rather, the fact we play RS (and pay them if we are P2P) connotes that we both voluntary accept each others positions, or, alternatively, if either side does not accept the other (such as us disagreeing with the rules, or Jagex disagreeing with our behavior), the contract is terminated by either us or Jagex.

 

 

 

But please don't ever say that their opinion is "heavier" than anyone elses, because it is not.

 

 

 

I don't like the limits either.. but I understand why Jagex put them in. What you aren't recognizing -- or perhaps I just missed it in some other discussion -- is that these changes were put into place in many cases BECAUSE of merchants. We've even seen a few of them here on this forum, openly and happily admitting that they manipulated prices, worked to "rip people off" and so forth.

 

 

 

So? I fully admit some merchants did bad things. I'm not opposed to the update because I like the dishonest merchants. I'm opposed to the update because, in my opinion, it is absolutely not justified to restrict the honest merchants so the dishonest ones get caught in the process.

 

 

 

My personal opinion is that merchants were not a *primary* target in the recent changes -- the main targets were RWTers, gamblers, bots and cheaters. Merchants (and rare speculators) were just a form of collateral damage that Jagex didn't really mind very much.

 

 

 

And frankly, neither have most of the rest of RS players.

 

 

 

Jagex indeed didn't mind it very much, at least not enough to not take the action. But I mind it. And as a result of their action, I made an action of myself - namely cancelled membership and quit RS. Now, they may either care about it or not (and they'd obviously care more if more people quit), but even if I knew that my quittal wouldn't change Jagex's decision, I'd still do it for two reasons -- I simply do not enjoy being part of the new environment, and I'd simply feel happier knowing Jagex, which made a decision I don't like, now gets $5/mo less, however little that is.

 

 

 

Beyond that, I'm no longer party to the me-Jagex contract, and I have no further way of directly influencing the game. I do however always keep the right to an opinion (which I here duly express). If other people are happy with the way Jagex runs things and prefer to stay members, that is entirely their right, and while I don't think that is smart for their own sake (why pay a company which does not treat it's own customers with respect?), it is really none of my business of how players interact with Jagex.

 

 

 

I do NOT accept keeping paying money to a party which is willing to treat me as a collateral damage target in their crusade against whatever. If other people ARE, good for them, it's their full and absolute right.

 

 

 

Now, if I really wanted to get down and dirty, I'd argue about the primary target audience of young children who are too young to realize the way Jagex itself is exploiting their client-provider relationship, which most comparable rational adults would not find nearly as acceptable. In this way, I could say that Jagex advertising to young children is very very similar to those "exploitation" merchants you described, who exploit a player's gullibility to get them to pay you money. :twisted:

[Duke_Freedom]

Solidus, I'd say the income change part is only a very small part of the reasons and I'd also rather throw it on the stack long-term effects if anywhere at all for the reason that Flammacor mentioned: it are zero-sum games. Furthermore, there are also people who are making more money than ever before. Panic, negativity, uncertainity and the new merchanting methods are definitely the main drivers behind the price drop.

 

 

 

And until recently, it too was very low risk, if there was any risk at all.

 

 

 

That's such a rubbish statement that it surprises me you even back it up. Risk doesn't 'suddenly' arise when prices are actually dropping - that risk was in there forever already then, as so many other risks.

 

 

 

so they are not making as much money anymore.

 

 

 

Can people stop to state this? Wanting to believe it being true, doesn't make it so. It's a false assumption and yet non-merchants are stating it all over while they have clearly have no clue what is even possible right now. Furthermore on the whole discussion of how much merchants make - innovative and creative ones will always be able to make millions if you have any 'acceptable' and effective real form of an economy anyway.

 

 

 

I fully admit some merchants did bad things.

 

 

 

Heck even I have stated on many occasions that 90% of the merchants ethic levels are dubious at best.

 

 

 

In this way, I could say that Jagex advertising to young children is very very similar to those "exploitation" merchants you described, who exploit a player's gullibility to get them to pay you money

 

 

 

Hm that's an interesting and certainly not far-fetched perspective that I hadn't heard before.