Cost to play - MA or Players fault?

You don't need a mod merc to lose lots hunting, so no. Players might set the cost to play on a high level, but MA sets the cost to play at all levels.

 

Depends what you consider the cost to play.

Hourly cost (decay, return % on activities) is set by MA/FPC, with some ability of the player to offset it through markup on loot and operating efficiently (not shooting into the sky for example).

Cost of acquiring gear is set jointly by players and MA/FPC, though the supply and demand model works pretty good overall - for most people there are plenty of low cost limited and unlimited options to choose from.

- Deathifier

 

Both can be blamed.

 

Purelly Mindark greed. a terrible emotion and for all of you playing the game for years, you should know this as a fact comming from Draconian Mindark. Anyway 5 years to go and they are screwed LOL. Tarsus aint no virtuallity ;)

 

Yes, even though MA claims Entropia has nothing to do with gambling, the significant buffering of funds for later return over periods of numerous sittings unfortunately would qualify it as gambling in the eyes of the Australian Internet/Interactive gambling authority.

This hopefully will change before their next major review which will include both the Entropia & Afterworld RCE services of which they will enforce the laws which will lock all Australians out of using either service if the IGA assesses them as an interactive online casino.

Ofc they need to substanciate the fact that the coded systems & accounting core does not involve gambling as well, however the prior point of significant funds buffering (unethically withholding participant funds over periods of time) is what gave the hang up of an inclusive outcome in late 2008 by the IGA.

They have several case study reports to review in advance of their own full assessment of the Entropia service at review time.

I do hope MA can resolve this issue that both MA/Partners & Australians "may" face when this time arrives.

As discussed on EF > http://www.entropiaforum.com/forums...180259-entropia-universe-gambling-thesis.html

And also on AWF for Afterworld > http://www.afterworldforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3466&post3466

 

Aye,

Unfortunately this would be the only option for Deathifier as the law covers all who are physically located in Australia.

Don't get me wrong, my hope is the outcome is good and it is not added to their Online Casino register.

I would be quite pissed if it is. Moreso at the Swedish Authority for their slack assessment methodology.

On a lighter note,

I think the amusing part of the experience over the last year and a bit has been trying to indirectly drum this info into MA officials on EF. I mentioned to someone a few weeks ago, "I wonder if Marco is finally catching on."

Maybe MA will finally take notice of the more direct approach that a case study group has been at work for the last year in the thesis thread. *shrugs*

Maybe he will clue on to why I kept getting so pissed off with him to the point of being undiplomatic.

LINK > http://www.entropiaforum.com/forums...flections-landgrab-2009-a-23.html#post1912483

There are roughly 20 odd posts with somewhat direct hints in them MA/Marco, a pm indirectly hinting and even an email directly stating measured concerns !.

Most of the posts included suggestions with them, Ah! The PED buffer sponge !

LINK > http://www.entropiaforum.com/forums...ark-needs-balance-manager-10.html#post1918155

 

I'll watch what happens :)

It could get interesting though, as there are two entities involved: Entropia and Calypso.

Entropia itself does not demand that a planet operates the way Calypso does, it is just an option and you are free to have an Entropia account (which is your account, you don't have an "FPC account") without ever getting involved in Calypso (or at least you will, when other planets launch).

On the other hand you have Calypso, which is part of Entropia although technically an independant entity (run by FPC, even if FPC is part of MA), wherein you may or may not choose to participate in one or more activities.

Hard to tell which way a govt. review would go.

- Deathifier

 

Agreed,

In the discussion it was mentioned it would be done on the transaction processing hub which is MindArk PE AB since FPC is only the content providing partner who interfaces to the back end financial transaction processing core systems.

I am unclear on the full details myself tbh and no I do not work with them.

I did however initiate the contact upon request of prior partners to ensure that their involvement in the partnership arrangement would not be in violation of Australian laws as they were highly suspicous of the service after reviewing my activity financials as to how the service can not involve gambling which ofc includes with-holding funds over periods of time not owned by the service provider over and above their calculated set return %, hence the hounding for the result of their initial review - Inconclusive.

^^ Something that does not occur in the Afterworld RCE service at all.

VISA having already flagged MindArk & Entropia Universe as a online casino through an independent review and charging on VISA transactions appropriately did not help the situation.

This is also part and parcel of why the prior partners were no longer interested in involvement.

^^ Not my happiest day to have 260k aussie leave the portfolio, not to mention the large % fee attached to remove that amount early which I personally carried.

From that point on the IGA have had Entropia & MindArk in their scope after becoming aware that hundreds of Australians were using the service.

Personally I am not going to stress about it - MA has all the info they need to do the right thing if they have been up to this point dishonest.

I guess MA must have thought I was bored with making all the suggestion I did on EF;

Well it amuses me to think that may be the case when it is more in the hope that MA can find other balancing mechanisms than having to extensively buffer the participants funds for later release which will classify the service as an interactive online casino by the IGA.

Even in that above linked Sponge post on EF,
I quoted KD's post hoping it would indirectly spell out what was going on.
It wasn't quoted just for the fun of it.

 

Mmm..Just hope it goes well for you, I realy do, I shrug to think about this cos you have a lot to lose and i sure know how beaurocratic and controling the Oz-gov can be.

 

The frustrations of trying to get the message across to MA over 2009 almost sent me ,

In the end, I just let go and and occassionally instead.

A bit but what else could you do without being direct to directly influence case study data being collected by the team.

Wow so many emotes that fit

Anyway, time to sleep.

 

Thanks for the discussion and insight!

While I think the topic was a derailed a bit I think the question lavawalker brings up are important to bring up over and over again until they are addressed.

So as I understand it isn't the expense of the large to ticket items. It is more the balance of decay/ammo spent vs. loot returns that drives the complaints of play cost.

There is also the issue the Australian goverment review the Virtual Universe product that may classify it as online gambling. This worries me because other countries may follow suit.

I am doubly worried because from my perspective Australian government officals hate video game with a passion already.

 

The only problem i see with markup in entropia is the way it is regulated.

People work with what they are given and try to make the most of it.
Yes a Mod Merc is expensive but as long as it remains an optional item it will always reflect the correct perceived value.

From my point of view at least you can only be exploited in such situations by imperative and lack of options. Say all faculties randomly decide to triple their fees. As a parent it's not really an option to just shrug and move on, if it is within your possibilities to pay you most likely will.
An expensive car has no imperative.

Game mechanics on the other hand are forced on you, i can't opt out of huge loot swings. Sure i could stop playing but that makes it a mute point.
I can honestly say that if i was to stumble upon entropia today it is very unlikely i would play it.

This is by far the biggest issue i have with mmos, the total lack of regulation when it comes to "what you buy". I'm tired of developers changing anything and everything on grounds that they are following their artistic vision, or claims that current gameplay is in fact what was always intended but could never be accomplished etc.
We pay money (it doesn't matter how much) on a product. Then they take our refrigerator turn it into a TV and broadcast commercials on it of how useful refrigerators are, wouldn't we be interested in buying another one?

 

MA. you need to define "cost to play" properly first though. The cost of a Ferrari vs a Ford is not really anything to do with the cost of motoring, but reflects the style in which you chose to travel. A high cost here is indeed your fault. On the other hand, the cost of running a car in the petrol, road tax, tolls, compulsory insurance are the real costs of motoring and the fault of the state if too high. swap Ferrari/ford for items of choice and running costs for rate of return to resolve the metaphor.

unless you have other information, i believe it is implicit in MA controlling the economy and back end systems that they will all behave in the same way.

you keep banging this drum, do you have any evidence of this "buffering of funds" theory or is it just your pet concept of how the system works? in any case, what would it matter if the funds where "buffereed" for too long, as long as they were returned? i thought you used to claim it wasnt gambling precisly because the funds are buffered and all returned, so there seems a large dollop of inconsistancy here.

does ever occur to you that MA dont listen to you because you are wrong and they dont give a shit what you think?

as for Afterworld, untill one can with draw it is not an RCE, its no difference to dozens of games you can deposit money to buy upgrades. and do you have any idea of how business is done in Russia? its swings between shabby and corrupt, its like a modern day wild west guns and all.

is this VISA Australia or global? and is this confirmed by no US based residents being able to deposit by VISA, which im certain isnt the case? because thats what they do when flagging a company as gambling, they block all transactions from the US (many UK gambling firms got hurt by this, especially when they considered the US market as the largest growth market). this is not the same as individual banks flagging it.
and what portfolio? are you running an investment based on EU? with no hanagar, LA or such, good luck with that, i wonder are you worried about a fraud liability

 

If the planet has, for example, hunting and mining, yes I suspect MA will control part or all of the economy for now, however it is entirely possible that they shift some or all of that responsibility to the Planet Partner(s) in the future.

However a planet does not need to have hunting, mining, or manufacturing, or anything at all in which the cash you earn is randomly determined by the system.


It may be hard to imagine an Entropia planet where you don't shoot something, however consider an educational planet.

• Educational institutions deposit to buy land/property from the developers.
• Players deposit to buy tickets to seminars, lectures, maybe even entire online courses.
• The institutions, or whoever runs the seminars, can withdraw what they earn.
• Otherwise content is free for anyone to browse around and view.

Good luck getting that classified as a Casino :)

- Deathifier

 

i can certainly see things like that developing, the NASA proposal was similar wasnt it. theres already been the art gallery which, while it didnt sit properly, i could see where they were aiming for. what you got planned, professor Deathifier . i was thinking of other planets that focus on game elements will be stuck with the same mechanisms.

 

The buffering of funds is obvious if Entropia claims to not involve gambling, no need to prove it otherwise you would not get variable TT returns ranging from 20% up past 100+% and there would also be no allowance for globals, HoFs or ATHs.

^^ You know that rocket science stuff that a primary school student can work out;

If not buffered by the Entropia accounting core for return to the participant, then 100% definitely without any doubt a lottery/gambling based system as MA have stated the calculated return % has not changed
(which means a "set calculated rate" is "accounted for" and "returned") to the participant.

LINK > http://www.entropiaforum.com/forums...ibution-did-not-change-according-mindark.html

VISA if you ring them, you can find out about their sur-charge on VISA transactions into Entropia Universe and any other service.

VISA is a global organisation, I do not know if their policies on sur-charges would be different for different localities.

As for the rest, I will have to wait like everyone else for the outcome of the the IGA assessment which will be done in accordance with the ATO, Australian Taxation Office at their next major review of online interactive services involving finance sometime in 2011.

A report will be released to the Commonwealth countries once the review is completed and IGA 2001 ACT is revised.

So I guess we will see the answer then. The case study reports are only that, case study reports as data reference points before doing their own testing of the service and analysis of the flow of finance through the MindArk coded systems & accounting core.

As for Afterworld, it is RCE and it is in alpha "open to the public" phase, not commercially released of which the withdraw functionality will be in place.

http://talk.afterworld.ru/?showtopic=2217

As for the portfolio, that is my personal portfolio of which I draw upon, it was initially put together with 130k aussie contributed by three of us, 390k between myself and two associates that do not play computer games but were interested in the Entropia concept if it did not involve gambling.

The portfolio has nothing to do with Entropia itself, it is one of my real life investment portfolios which generates its own income that I use at this time to play RCE computer games.

Next time at least read what is infront of you.

As far as what MA thinks, that is not my concern, that is why the IGA will do their assessment and verify Mindarks' official statements in assuring Australians that the Australian federal laws are not being broken in using Entropia Universe.

 

Aye Deathifier, the assessment is strictly upon the platform central financial processing HUB at MindArk PE AB and has absolutely nothing to do with any partner content worlds. (FPC/SEE/CKI/etc)

Content worlds that involve the use of finance in the undertaking activities in hunting, mining & crafting will be used as a test point.

This can be on any content world offering this point-of-presence for the processing of finance (PED) since all of it is infact processed by the same central backend systems at MindArk PE AB.

The test is strictly on the flow of finance through the system, if chance or a combination of chance & skill is involved in the outcomes then the IGA 2001 ACT defines that as gambling.

Content world providers do none of the data, mechanics or financial processing. They are built using the MindArk world building Sandbox editor.

The model demonstrating the present arrangement for customer data processing can be found here:

LINK > http://www.entropiaplatform.com/entropia-platform/business-model/

The IGA is defined in what they do, no wishy washy arguements about their assessment approach.

If indeed MindArk does decide to move transaction processing for the participant to each world,
and "if" the IGA classified the service as gambling, then they would still classify the entire platform and all partner worlds as gambling if any interconnection between worlds with the participant's finance (PED) was possible.

ie. If PED can be deposited and moved with the participant between transaction processing points (worlds)

Otherwise each business (FPC/SEE/CKI/etc) would need to be a seperate entity and not part of the MindArk platform in any way, therefore each seperately assessed and audited yearly by the IGA.

I have sent off a communique linking this post to clarify if this would be the case.