Investing in stores in Oblivion

[Solik]

That's what I wanted to ask, too I really wonder how a reasonable guy like MFSD could write what he wrote with a straight face.

Cross-posting myself from the ESF:

A small-time arms dealer who sells cheap blades wouldn't have a lot of difficulty selling any number of swords that the average player would reasonably bring (and there's no need really to make special exceptions for the weird player who spends 10 hours collecting 150 iron shortswords to sell to some guy). However, expensive items are much riskier business. If said merchant isn't wealthy and established enough, buying one hugely-priced item from a guy, then having problems selling it (or worse, having it stolen) could be a fatal blow to the business.

Investing increases a merchant's capital, making it easier for them to deal in expensive items.

It's extremely simplistic, but no more simplistic than a number for HP simulating physical wounds.

In short, there's an unreasonable amount of attention being given to this. I would think questions like "Where do the monsters come from? Why do more always respawn? Where do they get the stuff they drop from?" would come to mind first.

I just don't see how any of that matters in a game that spans a few months' time rather than a lifetime or three.

 

[Twinfalls]

These guys just don't know what the fuck they are doing, plain and simple.

Gee, that must be why they are selling so good.

Could all dumbfucks who trot this out in future please refer to section8's comments about Hitler, and popularity being no defence? Maybe that should be stickied or something.

Also,

First and foremost I want a system where I can trade with merchants without being painfully aware of arbitrary game mechanics restrictions. A real economy would be nice, but not absolutely necessary. Once again, Bethesda have gone for a simple, nonsense solution, rather than a slightly more complex coherent one.

-which is nice and succinct.

 

[Lumpy]

A problem with a true economy system is that, in a world the size of Oblivion, it would be too easy to unbalance the system. It could work in Daggerfall though.
For example, the player slaughters three farms. In a realistically sized world, it will hardly affect economy. In a world the size of Oblivion, where there are probably 6 farms in total, destroying three would have unrealistic, annoying consequences on the world.

 

[Twinfalls]

THERE IS NO NEED FOR A TRUE ECONOMY FOR INTERESTING, LOGICAL METHODS OF BALANCE IN BUYING AND SELLING STUFF.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Well, you can't claim that Hitler didn't know what he was doing, he had a very successful product to sell while it lasted. The comparison is even more anal than usual around here.

 

[Lumpy]

Fucking stop comparing Oblivion with Hitler. Hitler was a good ruler, yes, hence the many followers. He was morally evil, but that has nothing to do with his ability to rule.
Damn it, TES is not morally wrong in any way. A good game is one that people enjoy, not a game YOU like. Oblivion will be very enjoyed, so it will be a good game.
Discussing the game's RPGness is ok, since it's you who decide how good an RPG a game is, being the RPG community. However, how good a game is outside of genres is decided by how enjoyable the game is.

 

[Twinfalls]

Well, you can't claim that Hitler didn't know what he was doing, he had a very successful product to sell while it lasted. The comparison is even more anal than usual around here.

That's the point, silly. It was 'successful', but was it 'Good'? (or of lasting value to people?)

Fucking stop comparing Oblivion with Hitler.

No-ones doing that, dipshit. Can you not understand the concept being put forward here? How fucking stupid are people? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

 

[Lumpy]

THERE IS NO NEED FOR A TRUE ECONOMY FOR INTERESTING, LOGICAL METHODS OF BALANCE IN BUYING AND SELLING STUFF.

And why did you post in caps? I was answering the people discussing the possibility of a true economy on the previous pages.

 

[Perishiko]

Well, nobody knows anything about the economy of the game yet. I find this to be another bitching about the unkown.

How do you know there are no merchants that have enough money to buy alot of the high end things? You don't.

Hell, if i could have "invested" into the creeper in morrowind i could have done things alot quicker... I see it as a fix to the economy while adding a money sink at the same time. Nothing bad in my opinion.

Why should they add in merchants that have nearly infinite gold? Not everybody in the game is going to be a rich maniac with tons of money to spend on peoples "great" items.


Edit: Oh ya, and i just as well use to think that the "investing" into them was not only a way to let them have more gold... But also a way to gain some "interest" and actually have a "share" of their business. I guess it's a little worse then i had first thought a while back, but i still don't see it as a "bad" thing.

 

[Lumpy]

That's the point, silly. It was 'successful', but was it 'Good'? (or of lasting value to people?)

Hitler? Or Morrowind?
If you are talking about Hitler's regime, it was politically good, yet morally bad. There is no corelation between the two concepts though.

 

[Twinfalls]

Oh for God's sakes. The Hitler analogy is relevant to the 'But it's popular so it must be good' argument that keeps getting trotted out to shoot down criticism. It's an extreme illustration of the fallacy. Understand?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Well, you can't claim that Hitler didn't know what he was doing, he had a very successful product to sell while it lasted. The comparison is even more anal than usual around here.

That's the point, silly. It was 'successful', but was it 'Good'? (or of lasting value to people?)

Fucking stop comparing Oblivion with Hitler.

No-ones doing that, dipshit. Can you not understand the concept being put forward here? How fucking stupid are people? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

Can you grasp the concept of inapropriatness?

 

[Lumpy]

Oh for God's sakes. The Hitler analogy is relevant to the 'But it's popular so it must be good' argument that keeps getting trotted out to shoot down criticism. It's an extreme illustration of the fallacy. Understand?

Hitler's regime was popular, good, and morally wrong.
TES is popular, good, and not morally wrong.
See the difference?

 

[Twinfalls]

I give up. Too much stupidity to deal with today.

Edit: No goddamit, I'll try one more time.

The Hitler analogy used in relation to the 'it's popular so it must be good' argument, where it is perfectly appropriate. It illustrates why that argument is silly.

NO ONE IS SAYING TES IS LIKE HITLER. OKAY?

 

[Lumpy]

How do you know there are no merchants that have enough money to buy alot of the high end things? You don't.

We do. Who the fuck would invest in a merchant to rise his gold from 5000 to 10000 when there already is another one who has 10000 from the start?

 

[Lumpy]

I give up. Too much stupidity to deal with today.

Edit: No goddamit, I'll try one more time.

The Hitler analogy used in relation to the 'it's popular so it must be good' argument, where it is perfectly appropriate. It illustrates why that argument is silly.

NO ONE IS SAYING TES IS LIKE HITLER. OKAY?

I. GOT. THAT.
You are trying to prove that something popular is not necessarily good, right? Hitler's regime is inappropriate. It WAS good. Popular, THEREFORE good.

 

[Twinfalls]

Hitler's regime is inappropriate. It WAS good. Popular, THEREFORE good.

<Slams head into wall>

Lumpy, the whole point of the damn example is to suggest that popular does not neccessarily equate to good. If Hitler cannot illustrate this to you, then either you're a dedicated Nazi, or I'm going mad. Either way, I give up.

 

[bryce777]

These guys just don't know what the fuck they are doing, plain and simple.

Gee, that must be why they are selling so good.

Could all dumbfucks who trot this out in future please refer to section8's comments about Hitler, and popularity being no defence? Maybe that should be stickied or something.

Also,

First and foremost I want a system where I can trade with merchants without being painfully aware of arbitrary game mechanics restrictions. A real economy would be nice, but not absolutely necessary. Once again, Bethesda have gone for a simple, nonsense solution, rather than a slightly more complex coherent one.

-which is nice and succinct.

I was going to point out that appeal to popularity is one of the ten basic logical fallacies, but I decided not to bother. I was arguing with an alleged phd in philosophy one time, who told me he was "out of my league" who actually managed to break all ten of them in one single longwinded, insane rant, so I figure if he ignores them then it's hopeless trying to explain to tes fanbois.

 

[Sisay]

Between the so-called fanboy reviews, the vault dweller review and all the codexers reviews, We will have something to read until the next TES game...

I have to admit I'm looking forward to VD's review and the shitstorm that will follow. It's going to be NWN all over again.

 

[Perishiko]

How do you know there are no merchants that have enough money to buy alot of the high end things? You don't.

We do. Who the fuck would invest in a merchant to rise his gold from 5000 to 10000 when there already is another one who has 10000 from the start?

I would argue against that... just because there will always be a difference between the amount of gold different npc's have. It's been stated in a dev quote as well.

But, anyhow, i think i'm done in this losing arguement. I can't see any other thing to really point towards a broken/good economy. Not enough is known, besides the fact that pointless items are no longer worth anything.

 

[VenomByte]

Maybe we need some more examples.

Crazy frog was popular. It was not good.

Burning old women who looked a bit like witches was once popular. It was probably not a good thing.

 

[WouldBeCreator]

I'd like to highlight the point made a few posts above: the fallacy of arguing for popularity is arguing that because something is popular, it is *praiseworthy* (either factually or ethically or artistically -- by some objective measure). Because "good" can mean "ethically praiseworthy," it's true that you can say that it's fallacious to argue that because something is popular it is good -- but only in that sense.

The argument made with Morrowind isn't that Morrowind is ethically right or artistically praiseworthy or anything like that. The argument is that it wouldn't sell well unless it was "good" in the sense that it was *subjectively* enjoyable to people. Bryce's theory that it only sold well because of Daggerfall's reputation is so facially preposterous as to hardly merit a response (there was a six year gap, Morrowind had successful expansions, etc., etc.). Clearly many people like Morrowind. I don't. I disagree with their taste. But taste in whether a game is enjoyable or not is pretty subjective, and as much as I try to argue that there is an objective measure for everything, it seems fairly absurd to assume that hundreds of thousands of people who played Morrowind aren't having fun doing it. And if they're having fun, it's a good game, at least in my book.

I can't find sales figures, but the strategy guide apparently sold over 200,000 copies (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _110307909). I'll search to see if I can find sales figures. [EDIT: This fansite, http://morrowind.rpgdot.com/index.php, says there were over four million copies sold. Others list over one million for XBox, which puts somewhere around three million on the PC.]

 

[Drain]

Bryce's theory that it only sold well because of Daggerfall's reputation is so facially preposterous as to hardly merit a response (there was a six year gap, Morrowind had successful expansions, etc., etc.).

You are ignoring the second part of his argument: it had little competition at Xbox side. I would rather say that it was so popular on PC because it was pretty. In 2002 it was the prettiest RPG I had seen.

 

[Drain]

Investing increases a merchant's capital, making it easier for them to deal in expensive items.

In what way? Does higher capital give them an access to richer customers? If the cutoff price is X, why is he willing to pay X for an item that costs X+1 and X for an item that costs X+100000?

EDIT: Don't forget that you can buy some of his stuff in the same transaction, if item cost exceeds cutoff price. He is willing to pay X for your daedric armor, but if it costs much more than X, you can add a couple of dwemer swords out of his inventory to the money he is paying you(unless you can barter one item at a time in oblivion). Does it make sense?

 

[WouldBeCreator]

I don't know enough about the XBox market to comment intelligently. You're right that the XBox had few RPGs, and I suppose if someone who loved RPGs so much that he was willing to play ones that he knew sucked yet nevertheless bought an XBox, he would probably go ahead and buy Morrowind, too.

Maybe Morrowind sold because it was pretty. The graphics were good for an RPG. But the people I know who played it and liked it seemed to enjoy it because it basically let them powerplay a la MMORPGs in a single player environment. The graphics never struck me as their primary interesting -- rather, they seemed to really enjoy how they developed their characters and how they were able to overcome obstacles creatively (like flying up to a pillar and shooting some monster to death (apparently it wouldn't walk away)).

As I said, I didn't like Morrowind and I'm not trying to defend its merits. But I do think this whole, "It only sold because people are stupid and like games that they don't enjoy because they look pretty!!!!" strikes me as a silly position to stake out (not as silly as claiming that Morrowind was a bait-and-switch for Daggerfall, of course). Morrowind could never have sold three million PC copies on its graphics alone -- they were good, but they weren't mindblowing. It wasn't a tech demo the way Myst or Unreal Tournament or Half-Life II was where people would want to show it off or just see how good it looked.

There are lots of games -- from soccer to Galactic Civilizations II to Beirut -- that millions of people like but I hate. In some cases -- like Beirut -- I think the games suck and that people who like them are stupid. But I don't think that people are *tricked* into liking them and they really aren't enjoying themselves.