This is the one that I was really hoping would change.
I've always wanted to try Warrior/Monk, but I did not want to put the money investment into something that I may not even enjoy, because I know I will never succeed the way I want to unless I buy weapon runes.
Though with the overhaul coming, I can at least hold out hope that maybe things will change and they are not required to be decent, or continued self-awareness posts like these will make a non-artied out Warrior viable eventually.
2014/04/19 01:38:01 - Leolamins drained 2000000 power to raise Silvanus as a Vernal Ascendant.
2014/07/23 05:01:29 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Munsia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:07 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Arimisia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:58 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Lavinya as a Vernal Ascendant.
@Estarra I know many of the reductions were auction artifacts first and I don't know how many people got them after they became general artifacts, but what would be the chances of those with the artifacts that got price drops to get back the credits of the difference? Or would this fall in the whole 'you paid extra to have early access' that comes with auction artifacts?
I really doubt that, because it would be tough to tell who got things via presents vs. actually paid for them; in this case, if you bought them, you were getting the "early access" as you put it.
Edit: That said, looking at the prices here, I'm down around 1,075 credits myself on things I actually paid for! Owch.
I don't see why that should matter. They're in presents who's chance was based on the value they had at the time of being added to the presents. If anything, some adjustments should be made to presents based on the changes (some items removed or move down a spot). It still seems our presents are likely a bit below par vs the other IRE games, but without lists of what others get in other games, that's just an impression. It just seems odd that you You can get an exceptional present which still has a 16% chance of giving you a value of as low as 2kish.
Their effectiveness is exactly the same. You didn't lose anything.
Edit: I'm sure if you ask for the old trade value for whatever reason, they'll do their best to accommodate you.
Nope, issued it and was told no refunds unless it was a 'recent purchase'
Ah, I can understand that. You still got the benefit from using them all that time so it makes sense. I have a gut feeling that some people would tradein the heavily discounted artifacts, only to turn around buy it again and keep the extra credits. Which is sketch.
Yeah we wouldn't be offering refunds on cupcakes if we decided to start selling them for less. I'm not sure what kind of business that would make sense for.
Yeah we wouldn't be offering refunds on cupcakes if we decided to start selling them for less. I'm not sure what kind of business that would make sense for.
Place I work at has running promotions on a daily basis. It varies from 45 to 55% off, but if someone bought at 45% off and then saw a new discount the next day, they can call in and request that their order be repriced and the difference refunded. A load of crap in my opinion.... but what can you do?
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
To my knowledge, Target also offers something similar, albeit they have a set timeframe. /randomfact
Viravain, Lady of the Thorns shouts, "And You would seize Me? Fool! I am the Glomdoring! I am the Wyrd, and beneath the cloak of Night, the shadows of the Silent stir!"
Pretty sure there's a huge disclaimer about credit purchases.
Disclaimer: ----------- Lusternia is a functioning world, and while we guarantee you will not lose any of the credits you buy, no such guarantee can be provided for what you purchase with the credits themselves. Naturally, we wouldn't be in business very long ifthis happened frequently, but as it is a world, your actions have consequences, and the actions of others can result in consequences for you. It's this dynamism in the nature of the world that people enjoy about Lusternia. Thus, it is possible that the perceived or real value of the things you purchase with credits, or your ability to use those things, may both rise and decline during the course of play.
EDIT: However, I think Lusternia admin are actually pretty nice about this? It's worth asking for a refund or summat.
Many stores around me offer such a thing as well. A good number also offer you to use coupons too (if you get a coupon after you buy something, and your purchase is still within the return period, you can take your receipt back and they will give you the money the coupon would save.)
Many stores around me offer such a thing as well. A good number also offer you to use coupons too (if you get a coupon after you buy something, and your purchase is still within the return period, you can take your receipt back and they will give you the money the coupon would save.)
That sounds like something covered by their return policy. After all, you can just return the item and get a new one with the coupon after. Lusternia doesn't really have a return policy as far as I can tell.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Their effectiveness is exactly the same. You didn't lose anything.
Edit: I'm sure if you ask for the old trade value for whatever reason, they'll do their best to accommodate you.
Nope, issued it and was told no refunds unless it was a 'recent purchase'
@Celina Many of us did, quite substantially, lose net worth and trade-in value, and others much more-so than myself at this juncture. That is not how finances work... If you purchase something and return it later only to find it is worth a pittance of its original value, you have indeed dropped in net worth and potential liquid assets. More simply, if I want to trade something in I am getting less credits back than has been the standard the administration has set since day 1. They created that standard, and customers have come to expect that level of return. I think it's reasonable for any and everyone to be unpleased that someone else is paying a fraction of the cost for an identical item. If this happened in a store you, and everyone else, would surely raise righteous hell about it, yes? Also, effectiveness being the same is an assumption until the overhaul goes live given the new buff caps and such.
I ask now so that if/when more get added, the issue can be addressed now and not expand further. If warrior weapon runes get reduced, I don't think it's remotely fair for a 2900cr (3900cr with pliers) investment to be ground into dust later on.
Edit: I understand they can change things however they want, and we're not entitled to diddly, but when a standard has been set it's reasonable to expect that to continue.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Their effectiveness is exactly the same. You didn't lose anything.
Edit: I'm sure if you ask for the old trade value for whatever reason, they'll do their best to accommodate you.
Nope, issued it and was told no refunds unless it was a 'recent purchase'
@Celina Many of us did, quite substantially, lose net worth and trade-in value, and others much more-so than myself at this juncture. That is not how finances work... If you purchase something and return it later only to find it is worth a pittance of its original value, you have indeed dropped in net worth and potential liquid assets. More simply, if I want to trade something in I am getting less credits back than has been the standard the administration has set since day 1. They created that standard, and customers have come to expect that level of return. I think it's reasonable for any and everyone to be unpleased that someone else is paying a fraction of the cost for an identical item. If this happened in a store you, and everyone else, would surely raise righteous hell about it, yes? Also, effectiveness being the same is an assumption until the overhaul goes live given the new buff caps and such.
I ask now so that if/when more get added, the issue can be addressed now and not expand further. If warrior weapon runes get reduced, I don't think it's remotely fair for a 2900cr (3900cr with pliers) investment to be ground into dust later on.
Edit: I understand they can change things however they want, and we're not entitled to diddly, but when a standard has been set it's reasonable to expect that to continue.
Actually, depreciation of value is a significant part of finance. Should you purchase something that must be replaced, a court for example would only award the amount of the depreciated value. If you bought a car and subsequently traded it in, you would only get the depreciated value. You haven't lost anything, because you used the item while it depreciated and are only entitled to a replacement of equal value, not the value of the original purchase price. Your gross loss may be immediate assets available, but your net loss is nothing. You have to valuate for the time you possessed the item. No business anywhere values anything at the original purchase price. They might refund that to you for customer satisfaction concerns, but they aren't valuating the item as new. I am not going to be displeased when a person buys the same Honda civic I did a year later for less.
Now, it's a little weird since it's an Internet item that doesn't have a literal decay of value like a car's book value, but they are still subject to some depreciation rules and the admin have, in fact, set the standard for depreciation of value of these items in the rules of the game. The values have always been subject to change based on the current climate and mechanics of the game. If you buy an item and use it for a year, then the price changes because x skill changed or the demand has shifted, the value of your item has depreciated. That, my friend, is how finance works. You can ask me, my job is literally financing, valuation, and how we legally define the value of an item in a shifting market. (Part of my job at least)
Edit: Plus you're expecting them to set some weird business precedent. This could easily become "Shadowdancers lost choke, I want a refund on the credits I spent on skills because paid more than other players for less." It's just not a realistic business practice.
Their effectiveness is exactly the same. You didn't lose anything.
Edit: I'm sure if you ask for the old trade value for whatever reason, they'll do their best to accommodate you.
Nope, issued it and was told no refunds unless it was a 'recent purchase'
@Celina Many of us did, quite substantially, lose net worth and trade-in value, and others much more-so than myself at this juncture. That is not how finances work... If you purchase something and return it later only to find it is worth a pittance of its original value, you have indeed dropped in net worth and potential liquid assets. More simply, if I want to trade something in I am getting less credits back than has been the standard the administration has set since day 1. They created that standard, and customers have come to expect that level of return. I think it's reasonable for any and everyone to be unpleased that someone else is paying a fraction of the cost for an identical item. If this happened in a store you, and everyone else, would surely raise righteous hell about it, yes? Also, effectiveness being the same is an assumption until the overhaul goes live given the new buff caps and such.
I ask now so that if/when more get added, the issue can be addressed now and not expand further. If warrior weapon runes get reduced, I don't think it's remotely fair for a 2900cr (3900cr with pliers) investment to be ground into dust later on.
Edit: I understand they can change things however they want, and we're not entitled to diddly, but when a standard has been set it's reasonable to expect that to continue.
Actually, depreciation of value is a significant part of finance. Should you purchase something that must be replaced, a court for example would only award the amount of the depreciated value. If you bought a car and subsequently traded it in, you would only get the depreciated value. You haven't lost anything, because you used the item while it depreciated and are only entitled to a replacement of equal value, not the value of the original purchase price. Your gross loss may be immediate assets available, but your net loss is nothing. You have to valuate for the time you possessed the item. No business anywhere values anything at the original purchase price. They might refund that to you for customer satisfaction concerns, but they aren't valuating the item as new. I am not going to be displeased when a person buys the same Honda civic I did a year later for less.
Now, it's a little weird since it's an Internet item that doesn't have a literal decay of value like a car's book value, but they are still subject to some depreciation rules and the admin have, in fact, set the standard for depreciation of value of these items in the rules of the game. The values have always been subject to change based on the current climate and mechanics of the game. If you buy an item and use it for a year, then the price changes because x skill changed or the demand has shifted, the value of your item has depreciated. That, my friend, is how finance works. You can ask me, my job is literally financing, valuation, and how we legally define the value of an item in a shifting market. (Part of my job at least)
Edit: Plus you're expecting them to set some weird business precedent. This could easily become "Shadowdancers lost choke, I want a refund on the credits I spent on skills because paid more than other players for less." It's just not a realistic business practice.
That precident already exist. It is called refunding lessons and then it is on the person if they go ahead an relearn a skill.
Depreciation does not apply as you are likening it to that of a car. Administration set the devaluing standard at 2/3 that has been in place since day 1 for over a decade now. Your logic has no place. That is the point.
Also, 'no business anywhere values anything at the original purchase price" is simply not true and a wild statement. Not everything decpreciates. Some things like houses can appreciate and are worth the same, or more than the original value.
There is no decay on the value outside the initial 1/3, as proven by a standard set forth for over a 10 years in Lusternia. If I own the product for 1 month, or 10 years, the rate has always been the same. You can take that as categorical proof of no depcreciation as you claim.
Edit: the "not how finances work" part was to address your first reply claiming "You didn't lose anything" which is simply not factual. I'm sorry if you took that personally and/or put you on the defensive. That was not the intent.
Their effectiveness is exactly the same. You didn't lose anything.
Edit: I'm sure if you ask for the old trade value for whatever reason, they'll do their best to accommodate you.
Nope, issued it and was told no refunds unless it was a 'recent purchase'
@Celina Many of us did, quite substantially, lose net worth and trade-in value, and others much more-so than myself at this juncture. That is not how finances work... If you purchase something and return it later only to find it is worth a pittance of its original value, you have indeed dropped in net worth and potential liquid assets. More simply, if I want to trade something in I am getting less credits back than has been the standard the administration has set since day 1. They created that standard, and customers have come to expect that level of return. I think it's reasonable for any and everyone to be unpleased that someone else is paying a fraction of the cost for an identical item. If this happened in a store you, and everyone else, would surely raise righteous hell about it, yes? Also, effectiveness being the same is an assumption until the overhaul goes live given the new buff caps and such.
I ask now so that if/when more get added, the issue can be addressed now and not expand further. If warrior weapon runes get reduced, I don't think it's remotely fair for a 2900cr (3900cr with pliers) investment to be ground into dust later on.
Edit: I understand they can change things however they want, and we're not entitled to diddly, but when a standard has been set it's reasonable to expect that to continue.
I would assume that those people who have been hearing that willpower and endurance were going away, might have tried to sit on those artifacts expecting the full refund. Sucks to be them.
Edited: Golden Goblet is not Iron Goblet. Nevermind.
My words: "I think it's reasonable for any and everyone to be unpleased that someone else is paying a fraction of the cost for an identical item. If this happened in a store you, and everyone else, would surely raise righteous hell about it, yes?"
A new PS3 and a 6 year old PS3 in a new market is not the same thing. See previous post about standards and depreciation, please.
Their effectiveness is exactly the same. You didn't lose anything.
Edit: I'm sure if you ask for the old trade value for whatever reason, they'll do their best to accommodate you.
Nope, issued it and was told no refunds unless it was a 'recent purchase'
@Celina Many of us did, quite substantially, lose net worth and trade-in value, and others much more-so than myself at this juncture. That is not how finances work... If you purchase something and return it later only to find it is worth a pittance of its original value, you have indeed dropped in net worth and potential liquid assets. More simply, if I want to trade something in I am getting less credits back than has been the standard the administration has set since day 1. They created that standard, and customers have come to expect that level of return. I think it's reasonable for any and everyone to be unpleased that someone else is paying a fraction of the cost for an identical item. If this happened in a store you, and everyone else, would surely raise righteous hell about it, yes? Also, effectiveness being the same is an assumption until the overhaul goes live given the new buff caps and such.
I ask now so that if/when more get added, the issue can be addressed now and not expand further. If warrior weapon runes get reduced, I don't think it's remotely fair for a 2900cr (3900cr with pliers) investment to be ground into dust later on.
Edit: I understand they can change things however they want, and we're not entitled to diddly, but when a standard has been set it's reasonable to expect that to continue.
I would assume that those people who have been hearing that willpower and endurance were going away, might have tried to sit on those artifacts expecting the full refund. Sucks to be them.
I don't see the iron will or bodily fortitude runes on the price redux list. I'm assuming that those, at least, will be honored by the promise made in the overhaul thread of a full refund.
A new PS3 and a new PS3 is the same though. I got a new PS3 six years ago for twice what I would have to pay for it today. It is, for all intents and purposes, an identical item for a reduced cost.
... If this happened in a store you, and everyone else, would surely raise righteous hell about it, yes?
Not really, no. I bought my PS3 about six years ago. If I were to buy it today, I'd bet it would cost less than what it did when I bought it.
The difference is more akin to a lease rather then buying. Imagine a year ago you paid for 10 years of green fees and a year later you find out they're selling the same exact service to new people at a huge discounted rate. They're able to do this because the older customers kept their business going. Now consider they had a policy that said you could trade in part of your subscription and receive 2/3rd credit towards your account. Given they had refunded the difference in the past (at least once), you might expect some compensation...say a few years added to your membership.
The other way of looking at it is like this: When people buy an artifact they're buying two things, the artifact and the tradein value. I've personally brought artifacts in the past expecting to use them for a time before later turning them in...knowing I'd lose 1/3 their value as a sort of rental fee.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Depreciation does not apply as you are likening it to that of a car. Administration set the devaluing standard at 2/3 that has been in place since day 1 for over a decade now. Your logic has no place. That is the point.
Also, 'no business anywhere values anything at the original purchase price" is simply not true and a wild statement. Not everything decpreciates. Some things like houses can appreciate and are worth the same, or more than the original value.
There is no decay on the value outside the initial 1/3, as proven by a standard set forth for over a 10 years in Lusternia. If I own the product for 1 month, or 10 years, the rate has always been the same. You can take that as categorical proof of no depcreciation as you claim.
Edit: the "not how finances work" part was to address your first reply claiming "You didn't lose anything" which is simply not factual. I'm sorry if you took that personally and/or put you on the defensive. That was not the intent.
But the issue is that isn't the only standard in place. It's one of the standards, but it is not the all encompassing standard. Yes, you are right, it's a little muddy water due to the nature of Internet items and perhaps my car metaphor is not the best, but some of the same basic factors of depreciation remain constant such as demand and relevance. These things are really covered in the blanket statement the rules have had also since day 1 that the value of artifacts are subject to change. It is 2/3rds of the current value of the artifact.
What I said was no business valuates at the original purchase price. Which is correct. A house gaining equity will still not be valuated on the terms of the original purchase price. Not that some things do not depreciate or that specific items don't gain equity over time. The point is that things are valuated in real time, whether for good or bad, and it's not a normal business practice to valuate, whether positively or negatively, based on terms of the original purchase.
What you lose is really based on how you valuate time. Which is weird, but possession of an item over time does for all intents and purposes translate to value. Which is why yes, you will lose gross assets available, but factoring in time in a scenario where an item is subject to change in value, you are not at a net loss because you gained value from the item, however I intangeable that value may be.
But anyways, I get what you are saying. I understand, as a customer, why that way makes sense and I can't say I wouldn't have a gut reaction to be upset. However, I also understand the boring business side that doesn't really justify handing credits back out.
... how is this even remotely like a lease? There's no time limit on it, there are no recurring costs, there are no contracts when buying artifacts, it's a one-time payment to get unlimited use of the artifact. For all intents and purposes, it's a purchase, not a lease. The fact that they have a refund policy doesn't change that.
It's like purchasing a new cell phone at full retail price? You can return it within 15 days and get a full refund. After that time you can then usually sell it for 2/3 the price. When new version of phone comes out (6 months later) the price at which you can now sell your phone is reduced dramatically because of a change that occurred.
It's like purchasing a new cell phone at full retail price? You can return it within 15 days and get a full refund. After that time you can then usually sell it for 2/3 the price. When new version of phone comes out (6 months later) the price at which you can now sell your phone is reduced dramatically because of a change that occurred.
What new version of artifact? Did prisms and cubixes drop in price when the torus was released? No, of course not. Do ships brought this year fly faster and require less power than a year ago? No. This sort of comparison doesn't hold. What are the manufacturing costs for artifacts? Lusternia doesn't have to retool or build new factories to make new prisms 1.0n. Lusternia doesn't have to pay gnomes increased wages for workers building the same prisms, or increased costs for gnome retirement packages. This isn't to say there aren't any cost or that the development has no costs.
Lusternia isn't like the latest iPhone. If it was it would have multiple versions and you'd upgrade (rebuy it) after x years they'd stop giving you any customer service.
Lusternia is a subscription based model. In a sense when you're buying an artifact you're pre-paying for future use with the understanding that as long as you don't violate the terms and as long as the artifact remains the same you will have use of the item for its and your lifetime (i.e. as long as you play and the game operates).
Artifacts aren't only virtual items, they're also virtual currency. They are part of a character's and a player's virtual wealth. They are directly part of the player's escrow. This is why even analogies using other types of virtual goods tend to fail. Imagine there's a music service where you not only buy songs, but you can sell the songs back to the company for 2/3rd credit towards other songs. Now, imagine that the company lowers the price of some of the songs in your collection. This you are fine with as you did get to use the songs for a year or more and you still get the use of the songs. Then you get an email stating that even though you paid full price for those songs you'll be only getting the reduced value on trade in.
I don't see the iron will or bodily fortitude runes on the price redux list. I'm assuming that those, at least, will be honored by the promise made in the overhaul thread of a full refund.
Opps. Thanks Ixion. My mistake and I apologize for confusing the Golden Goblet with the Iron Goblet.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
It's like purchasing a new cell phone at full retail price? You can return it within 15 days and get a full refund. After that time you can then usually sell it for 2/3 the price. When new version of phone comes out (6 months later) the price at which you can now sell your phone is reduced dramatically because of a change that occurred.
What new version of artifact? Did prisms and cubixes drop in price when the torus was released? No, of course not. Do ships brought this year fly faster and require less power than a year ago? No. This sort of comparison doesn't hold. What are the manufacturing costs for artifacts? Lusternia doesn't have to retool or build new factories to make new prisms 1.0n. Lusternia doesn't have to pay gnomes increased wages for workers building the same prisms, or increased costs for gnome retirement packages. This isn't to say there aren't any cost or that the development has no costs.
Lusternia isn't like the latest iPhone. If it was it would have multiple versions and you'd upgrade (rebuy it) after x years they'd stop giving you any customer service.
Lusternia is a subscription based model. In a sense when you're buying an artifact you're pre-paying for future use with the understanding that as long as you don't violate the terms and as long as the artifact remains the same you will have use of the item for its and your lifetime (i.e. as long as you play and the game operates).
Artifacts aren't only virtual items, they're also virtual currency. They are part of a character's and a player's virtual wealth. They are directly part of the player's escrow. This is why even analogies using other types of virtual goods tend to fail. Imagine there's a music service where you not only buy songs, but you can sell the songs back to the company for 2/3rd credit towards other songs. Now, imagine that the company lowers the price of some of the songs in your collection. This you are fine with as you did get to use the songs for a year or more and you still get the use of the songs. Then you get an email stating that even though you paid full price for those songs you'll be only getting the reduced value on trade in.
Regarding your example, yes that is exactly how it legally works. You are not entering into an agreement for an item, even if virtual, at a maintained value unless explicitly stated in whatever agreement you enter in to. If, for whatever reason, you decided to sue, you are only ever entitled to the fair market value of a given item at the present time. If that item has dropped in value, lets say you can't play your 3 year old song because of manufacturer error, but that artist is no longer relevant and now their stuff is cheaper, you are only entitled to the cost to replace that song. Not whatever value you purchased it at.
Things don't have to be tangeable, or rust, or fall apart to depreciate in value. There are factors such as demand and relevance of an item that do impact even an internet's items value. IRE, just like most companies, only guarantees you will receive x credits for y compensation, and the value of how you invest those credits or the escrow of your character is covered by no guarantee. You have no agreement with IRE for the original value, or 2/3rds the original value. You are only guaranteed 2/3rds the credit value at the time you choose to turn it in. This is a super normal business practice.
I mean, I get it but that's really not how the world works.
It's less like a new model coming out (or the existing model literally degrading), and more that the environment has changed such that a particular item has less value (as has been pointed out already).
For example: Let's say your great-great-grandfather bought an amazing uber-plow before the turn of the 20th century. This cost him the equivalent of two months earnings from the farm. With the development of mass-market automobiles and automatic farming, that product was rendered less valuable, even if remains in perfect condition, with perfect functioning. Even though it works just as well as it did back then... it's an animal drawn/human powered plow, that function is not as desirable as it once was. No one in their right mind - nevermind the developers of said advancements- can be expected to pay the adjusted equivalent of 19th century prices to buy up plows like this. Period. Manual plows (or insert whatever you please here) just aren't worth what they used to be. Sucks.
Comments
This just cost me (and many others I'm sure) a substantial amount of credits in value and worth, without notice.
Edit: I'm sure if you ask for the old trade value for whatever reason, they'll do their best to accommodate you.
Estarra the Eternal says, "Give Shevat the floor please."
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Disclaimer:
-----------
Lusternia is a functioning world, and while we guarantee you will not lose any of the credits you buy, no such guarantee can be provided for what you purchase with the credits themselves. Naturally, we wouldn't be in business very long ifthis happened frequently, but as it is a world, your actions have consequences, and the actions of others can result in consequences for you. It's this dynamism in the nature of the world that people enjoy about Lusternia. Thus, it is possible that the perceived or real value of the things you purchase with credits, or your ability to use those things, may both rise and decline during the course of play.
EDIT: However, I think Lusternia admin are actually pretty nice about this? It's worth asking for a refund or summat.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
I ask now so that if/when more get added, the issue can be addressed now and not expand further. If warrior weapon runes get reduced, I don't think it's remotely fair for a 2900cr (3900cr with pliers) investment to be ground into dust later on.
Edit: I understand they can change things however they want, and we're not entitled to diddly, but when a standard has been set it's reasonable to expect that to continue.
Actually, depreciation of value is a significant part of finance. Should you purchase something that must be replaced, a court for example would only award the amount of the depreciated value. If you bought a car and subsequently traded it in, you would only get the depreciated value. You haven't lost anything, because you used the item while it depreciated and are only entitled to a replacement of equal value, not the value of the original purchase price. Your gross loss may be immediate assets available, but your net loss is nothing. You have to valuate for the time you possessed the item. No business anywhere values anything at the original purchase price. They might refund that to you for customer satisfaction concerns, but they aren't valuating the item as new. I am not going to be displeased when a person buys the same Honda civic I did a year later for less.
Now, it's a little weird since it's an Internet item that doesn't have a literal decay of value like a car's book value, but they are still subject to some depreciation rules and the admin have, in fact, set the standard for depreciation of value of these items in the rules of the game. The values have always been subject to change based on the current climate and mechanics of the game. If you buy an item and use it for a year, then the price changes because x skill changed or the demand has shifted, the value of your item has depreciated. That, my friend, is how finance works. You can ask me, my job is literally financing, valuation, and how we legally define the value of an item in a shifting market. (Part of my job at least)
Edit: Plus you're expecting them to set some weird business precedent. This could easily become "Shadowdancers lost choke, I want a refund on the credits I spent on skills because paid more than other players for less." It's just not a realistic business practice.
Also, 'no business anywhere values anything at the original purchase price" is simply not true and a wild statement. Not everything decpreciates. Some things like houses can appreciate and are worth the same, or more than the original value.
There is no decay on the value outside the initial 1/3, as proven by a standard set forth for over a 10 years in Lusternia. If I own the product for 1 month, or 10 years, the rate has always been the same. You can take that as categorical proof of no depcreciation as you claim.
Edit: the "not how finances work" part was to address your first reply claiming "You didn't lose anything" which is simply not factual. I'm sorry if you took that personally and/or put you on the defensive. That was not the intent.
Edited: Golden Goblet is not Iron Goblet. Nevermind.
someone else is paying a fraction of the cost for an identical item. If
this happened in a store you, and everyone else, would surely raise
righteous hell about it, yes?"
A new PS3 and a 6 year old PS3 in a new market is not the same thing. See previous post about standards and depreciation, please. I don't see the iron will or bodily fortitude runes on the price redux list. I'm
assuming that those, at least, will be honored by the promise made in
the overhaul thread of a full refund.
The other way of looking at it is like this: When people buy an artifact they're buying two things, the artifact and the tradein value. I've personally brought artifacts in the past expecting to use them for a time before later turning them in...knowing I'd lose 1/3 their value as a sort of rental fee.
But the issue is that isn't the only standard in place. It's one of the standards, but it is not the all encompassing standard. Yes, you are right, it's a little muddy water due to the nature of Internet items and perhaps my car metaphor is not the best, but some of the same basic factors of depreciation remain constant such as demand and relevance. These things are really covered in the blanket statement the rules have had also since day 1 that the value of artifacts are subject to change. It is 2/3rds of the current value of the artifact.
What I said was no business valuates at the original purchase price. Which is correct. A house gaining equity will still not be valuated on the terms of the original purchase price. Not that some things do not depreciate or that specific items don't gain equity over time. The point is that things are valuated in real time, whether for good or bad, and it's not a normal business practice to valuate, whether positively or negatively, based on terms of the original purchase.
What you lose is really based on how you valuate time. Which is weird, but possession of an item over time does for all intents and purposes translate to value. Which is why yes, you will lose gross assets available, but factoring in time in a scenario where an item is subject to change in value, you are not at a net loss because you gained value from the item, however I intangeable that value may be.
But anyways, I get what you are saying. I understand, as a customer, why that way makes sense and I can't say I wouldn't have a gut reaction to be upset. However, I also understand the boring business side that doesn't really justify handing credits back out.
Lusternia isn't like the latest iPhone. If it was it would have multiple versions and you'd upgrade (rebuy it) after x years they'd stop giving you any customer service.
Lusternia is a subscription based model. In a sense when you're buying an artifact you're pre-paying for future use with the understanding that as long as you don't violate the terms and as long as the artifact remains the same you will have use of the item for its and your lifetime (i.e. as long as you play and the game operates).
Artifacts aren't only virtual items, they're also virtual currency. They are part of a character's and a player's virtual wealth. They are directly part of the player's escrow. This is why even analogies using other types of virtual goods tend to fail. Imagine there's a music service where you not only buy songs, but you can sell the songs back to the company for 2/3rd credit towards other songs. Now, imagine that the company lowers the price of some of the songs in your collection. This you are fine with as you did get to use the songs for a year or more and you still get the use of the songs. Then you get an email stating that even though you paid full price for those songs you'll be only getting the reduced value on trade in.