guys I just love talking about economics let me tell you why

[krawco]

You still don't get it, do you?
My point was to prove that if game is earning money it's being developed faster.
As Delamore said (I remember your name from Wurm =) ) Wurm's economy isn't rly that good but at least it lets you play without money. I'm an example of such player. All my tools were 90+ QL with same enchants and I paid nothing for them. I just was in a good village - I traded everything for my skills.
Graphics... Well, they ain't the best, that's true. It's not Crytek + Havoc sort of game but they are still good and for sure better than here.
Rules? You must be talkin about one of non-pvp servers. And digging can be considered griefieng coz it modifies landscape! If you dig long enough you can dig a whole from which a newbie will not be able to climb out.
This game has many a lot better solutions than Wurm, for instance QL of trees, food and feasting system, QL spots of resources, perma-death, foraging, fishing just to name a few. Wurm is just a different game but it's not shitty. To me, all those hack'n'slash games are shitty and all sandbox games aren't.

[Delamore]

You still don't get it, do you?
My point was to prove that if game is earning money it's being developed faster.

Not really that true, for around 3 years every issue bought up that had anything to do with combat, the lead dev would respond with "It's fixed in the Fight Fix" which was a big update in the works that would fix EVERYTHING combat related and balance it all too.
After 3 years when it finally came out, it was terrible thrown together patch work that fixed none of the issues and bought many more. Apparently the Religion Fix was exactly the same.
Updates are slow, in directions that don't matter at all, reworks of existing stuff that breaks it worse or complete nonsense.

[Potjeh]

Incidentally the same country that sports some of the world's most draconian antitrust laws.

Apparently not draconian enough, since Verizon and buddies get to screw their customers any way they want- Or are you suggesting that this cellphone cartel is somehow the government's fault?

I'm still convinced that the recent doubling of petrol prices was completely artificial rather than caused by a real shortage.

You're talking about the most regulated and intervened in market in the world. The major cartel on the scene is made up entirely of national governments.

Who are doing it on behest of oil company lobbies, because they're the guys who's funds get you elected.

Anyway, your ideas are all fine and dandy when you have a perfect competition market, but those exist only in theory. In practice you usually end up with a couple of oligopolists controlling most of the supply. And in some branches you can't practically have a large number of companies. To take telecommunications as an example, there's only so much room for cellphone frequencies. Or does your ideal of lack of government control also mean that everyone should be allowed to use any radio frequency at will?

[jorb]

Apparently not draconian enough

Failure is only deferred success, amirite? I can't claim any particular expertise with regards to the American telecom market, so I'll refrain from discussing it.

Government regulation raises the bar of entry into any market, meaning that more capital, time and energy is required to enter the market, a sure-fire way of entrenching the already established interests. Unsurprisingly big companies are often the first to lobby for special laws and regulations of their particular industry. No private individual could even consider starting a bank, for example, as the industry is completely regulated in its minutest details. (In Sweden the costs for even *applying* for a permission to start a bank are some 100k USD). This despite the fact that a bank in its simplest incarnation is just a buddy holding on to some cash for you in his safe. Naturally this stifles otherwise naturally occurring competition. It would surprise me greatly if the telecom industry does not suffer from similar problems.

The early auto industry grew out of small machine shops and sheds of inventors and hobbyists. The early flight industry as well. Today the Wright brothers would be put in jail for violating precious safety regulations.

Who are doing it on behest of oil company lobbies, because they're the guys who's funds get you elected.

Hehe, I was referring to OPEC.

Oh, and I thought elections were what keeps government institutions from unhindered expansion? I vaguely recall you saying that a couple of pages back. Certainly you're not now suggesting that the system of mass democracy devoid of constitutional principles is in any way shape or form prone to corruption, or the outright buying of voters?

Bread and circuses. Bread and circuses.

Anyway, your ideas are all fine and dandy when you have a perfect competition market, but those exist only in theory. In practice you usually end up with a couple of oligopolists controlling most of the supply. And in some branches you can't practically have a large number of companies. To take telecommunications as an example, there's only so much room for cellphone frequencies. Or does your ideal of lack of government control also mean that everyone should be allowed to use any radio frequency at will?

Competition is not important in and of itself. I take no issue with the government recognizing and protecting various forms of private ownership. In fact that is one of its few legitimate functions.

-----------

The difference between you and me is that I see the self-interests of all human beings as being fundamentally harmonious. I do not believe that conflict is a necessary condition of man's existence on this earth and If I am wrong -- and man must necessarily be the wolf of man, as you seem to believe -- then the only meaningful political statement anyone could make is: woe to the conquered.

Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

[Zirikana]

Revisiting the cell-phone example, if i may: Isn't an oligopoly somewhat ideal in that case?

* Collusion or external factors (insider/hostile trading, government interference, etc.) are just inherently wrong, and can be separated out by good governance and law enforcement, so the size or number of the companies involved is irrelevant in that regard.
* Any national-scale enterprise like a telephone network cannot possibly be done by a mom-and-pop company, so at least one large company must exist to provide the service efficiently
* Several large companies will always vie against each other to compete for market share and maximize efficiency.
* Companies must fight for and earn their income (or at least they do in a non-fascist society). Governments can just take it from you.

My point is, we all seem to be raised from birth with the absolute knowledge that corporations and oligopolies are inherently evil. But what are the other options? Governmental control, or crippling inefficiency (i'd say the one implies the other, but let's not go there ).

I'm not saying large businesses are spotless, but this world-wide myth that "big business" is the root of all evil is really quite baffling to me. At any rate, i'd rather see a big corporation that IS evil be taken down by good journalism and an informed customer base voting with their wallets, and not by some pencil-necked politician with an axe to grind.

[Thurrok]

All big institutions are prone to that kind of behavior. After a while each customer becomes just an anonymous statistic that you don't have to give a crap about. The nice thing about capitalism and freedom of choice is that that other smaller provider exists at all.

Let's say I start a new smith character and begin selling Thanes, q100. Sodom, AD, Bottleneck has 1000q+ already, they start selling too. Guess who's not gonna get to sell his wares?

The nice thing about freedom of choice, of course, is the option of buying q100 instead of q1000. But who would actually do that? Small businesses are getting scarce and are easily overlooked due to lack of advertising capital. The amount of resources the bigger companies have at their disposal for development and marketing purposes is so much more than that of smaller competitors that it simply blows away everyone but the biggest. Take a look at EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft. If you pick out any recently released game, chances are it was made by one of these. Strangely enough, even though these new games tend to consist of utmost crap (whether it be gameplay, storyline, or overall concept), these studios dominate the market simply due to the fact that other game makers cannot afford it anymore to advertise/sell their products on a similar scale. What I want to say here is that while in some cases, smaller providers are feasible and better (as with the SIM card), in other cases (games) they have already been wiped by their established competition.

I'm not saying large businesses are spotless, but this world-wide myth that "big business" is the root of all evil is really quite baffling to me. At any rate, i'd rather see a big corporation that IS evil be taken down by good journalism and an informed customer base voting with their wallets, and not by some pencil-necked politician with an axe to grind.

About journalism... the power of journalism is far from being enough to do the trick. You might want to browse Wikileaks a bit to see how much bullshit has already been uncovered. Truth is, alot of people don't or more importantly can't give a fuck about what's going on in the world. What's a little worker drone supposed to do about his bosses' corruption? Should he go to the press and get fired? And leave feeding the family to... the state? Definitely not.

About voting with their wallets... you truly are an idealist, aren't you? People are easier to manipulate than to educate. Manipulation generates money, education costs money. Just look at all those WoW-zombies out there. Are you trying to tell me it's fun to do the same five clicks over and over? The folks at Blizz just managed to get a few things right about human psychology and six years later, they already had an army of 11 million cash cows ready to pay their bills. I'm not saying Blizzard is evil - they are just as human as everyone else. If I had the chance, I would definitely exploit the hell out of my clients and make them pay for whatever they can be made to pay for. This is exactly why I am afraid of the future. Uncontrolled capitalism, uncontrolled manipulation and an uneducated, critique-incapable consumer base are the perfect recipe for disaster.

Of course, this future will be an ideal environment for the zombies who "voted with their wallets", so there's nothing to be afraid of if you count yourself to be one of them. There'll (hopefully) still be the option of having a bullet to the head for those who want something else.

[Apostata]

All big institutions are prone to that kind of behavior. After a while each customer becomes just an anonymous statistic that you don't have to give a crap about. The nice thing about capitalism and freedom of choice is that that other smaller provider exists at all.

Let's say I start a new smith character and begin selling Thanes, q100. Sodom, AD, Bottleneck has 1000q+ already, they start selling too. Guess who's not gonna get to sell his wares?

The nice thing about freedom of choice, of course, is the option of buying q100 instead of q1000. But who would actually do that?

Comparing demand of goods in quality based system of H&H with philosophy of real-life demand for goods suck so hard, that Ive got heart attack.

Preposition that quality is only valuable value determinating demand is so...wrong WRONG WRONG WRONG WRORONFFNFNMtgff...*gasps*
*dead*
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani

[Thurrok]

Now that you had your heart attack, please stop posting.

kthxbai

[Apostata]

[Potjeh]

Failure is only deferred success, amirite?

Letting a house burn down is better than letting a town burn down, even if it is still a failure.

Oh, and I thought elections were what keeps government institutions from unhindered expansion? I vaguely recall you saying that a couple of pages back. Certainly you're not now suggesting that the system of mass democracy devoid of constitutional principles is in any way shape or form prone to corruption, or the outright buying of voters?

Elections just kill horrible governments. When all the options you're given are equally mediocre, it's the campaign funds that decide the victor.

The difference between you and me is that I see the self-interests of all human beings as being fundamentally harmonious. I do not believe that conflict is a necessary condition of man's existence on this earth and If I am wrong -- and man must necessarily be the wolf of man, as you seem to believe -- then the only meaningful political statement anyone could make is: woe to the conquered.

I can see how someone who's lived his whole life in a country like Sweden can think like you, but from where I'm standing it looks incredibly naive. My country's recent history has taught me that when different people want the same thing and there isn't a proper government to make their competition civil, it ends up in ditches filled with civilians.

Man is the wolf of man because man is by nature evil. People inflict petty harm upon others even when they don't stand to gain anything, just out of sheer malice. If you don't believe me, just give a small child a magnifying glass and an anthill. The whole point of upbringing and education is to learn how to curb our natural malice so we can fit into the society. If you want further proof, just look at In Congress Assembled and see how many people are killing for lulz. They'd do the same IRL if it wasn't for fear of repercussions, and they do that in times when society falls apart. The shell of civilized morals is incredibly thin, and any one of us would revel in rape, murder and torture given half a chance.

Revisiting the cell-phone example, if i may: Isn't an oligopoly somewhat ideal in that case?
...
* Several large companies will always vie against each other to compete for market share and maximize efficiency.

The problem is that the last part doesn't happen in practice. Oligopolists make deals with each other that allow them to reduce costs at the expense of quality, and keep prices higher than they ought to be. Stuff like this is happening with H&H jewellery market - the big 3 have agreed to stop selling thanes and to stop at q1000 with their sale goods to cut down on bulb costs. The customers suffer for it, but we do it because it's in our interest and we can get away with it. And let's face it, the price of jewellery is unrealistically high because there's a silent agreement not to compete against each other with prices.