The Economy of WoW

[--Pete]

Hi,

But do we want a normal balanced ecomony?
[right][snapback]63360[/snapback][/right]

Good question. Perhaps not. Let us consider the alternatives. If an economy (at least a game economy) is not balanced then either there is more money than there are goods and services or there is less money. If there is too much money, then the prices for items increases to the point that only those who have accumulated a lot of money can afford them. That usually means high level players. If there is not enough money, then certain things just don't get done (like buying tabards, or mounts, etc.). Again, it is the low level people that get screwed because even in a money poor society (game or real) those better off can get more, and the higher level characters are better off, if only because they have more choices (i.e., a level 30 can mine a newbie area, a newbie cannot mine a level 30 area, etc.).

So, I think that a little reflection indicates that a balanced economy is perhaps best.

I suggest that we actually dont. In a real world economy there is a vast disparity in wealth distrobution, and every game that mimics a real economy has this problem.

I think your logic is flawed. While it is true that in the real world economy there is a disparity in wealth distribution, that is not a flaw caused by the real world economy being 'balanced'. Indeed, the effects of that disparity are *smallest* when the economy is balanced and more severe the more the economy is out of balance. Historically, during periods of high inflation and periods of depression, the rich give up their toys and the poor give up their necessities.

Arguments about games based on an analogy to real life are problematic enough when the comparison is to a valid point. When the statement about the real world situation is dubious, at best, the argument becomes almost pointless.

I say "problem" because games are meant to be fun.  If the games economy effective works against the majority of players or the casual  its not fun for them.

I think your concept of fun is like eating ice cream -- fine at first but eventually too sweet and eventually cloying. Not suitable for a sustained diet. Perhaps pandering to the instant gratification with no effort crowd is the best way to sell a million copies of a game. But if the game has no staying power, then that gravy train of monthly subscriptons soon runs out.

It is up to the game designers to balance a game, including the economy. To simply say, "We cannot have a balanced economy because the players will not accept it." is a mark of a poor designer.

I think an "infinete" number of 1 time  exspenses is far preferable to to simply creating a high cost of living.  Prizes such as increaseing exspensive houses, fancy mounts and pretty clothes are a more player friendly solution.

Which either have no effect in game and will soon be ignored by any player with room temperature or higher IQ, or do have an effect in game and lead to uber characters. At best they do not fix the economy, at worst they break the game.

I want money sinks with costs which inrease expodentially with grade but offer diminishing or non-exesitant  increase in core game effectiveness.

That is the holy grail of game economy balance. We all want that, possibly just behind world peace and universal brotherhood. And a big winning lottery ticket.

The goal is simple -- but the path is not.

Also maintence costs are reasonable if they only support the types of fluff mentioned above.
Most syetems I see suggested end up squeezing the guy who justd wasnt to bash monsters/players and have good gear. But these same system do nothing about the expert trader who amasses 100s of the times wealth of the average player.

Optional junk, like better mounts and clothes and gambling are poorly thought out. People in RL buy those things and sacrifice others for them because they want the luxury or the relaxation or the prestige. In game, there is no luxury. The game is already a form of relaxation, so finding a way to relax in it is a bit of an oxymoron. Prestige is OK, but, unlike in real life, it will not get you a better job or get you laid, so people will not give up as much in a game as they would in real life just for prestige. So, people will not spend money on this things at the expense of trade items or better gear. They'll spend the surplus *after* they get their 'necessities'. Not much of a curb on inflation.

Its more important that the economy be fun for the average player than that it mimic a real economy.

What can I say? I never intended that the economy mimic a real economy -- a real economy isn't a closed system like a game economy, so that would be a bad model. There are some lesson to be learned from real economies, but no more than that. Which is why I never mentioned "real economies" in my post and your arguments against them are, at best, moot.

And, again, your argument is illogical on the surface. The assumption that an economy cannot both be fun and mimic a real economy is shown to be false from the success of all the Tycoon games over the years, starting with Monopoly (or the game Monopoly ripped off).

--Pete