Having full control entails just exactly that. They can take over whenever they want, if there’s an agreement until 2024, well that’s another thing entirely.
All come up to Tencent good will with GGG, there’s no reason to think they will take over, but they don’t need any excuse to do so.
Its in the same way most game content is copyrighted and owned by the publisher, usually companies don’t apply it to most game content on the internet, because they are benefitting from it or don’t care, but if you bash harshly the company, they can quickly punish you (as how Nintendo does for no reason).
Yeah, until GGG monumentally bork up and their profitability takes a consistent nosedive Tencent wouldn’t have any reason to deploy the nuclear option - replace the board with their own people and take day to day/creative control of the non-Chinese version. If they did that while GGG is still profitable (in the west) then they’d be killing the proverbial goose.
Just necause a majority shareholder can do something doesn’t mean they will. But I totally get people’s concern in this particular matter.
Does any of those address the part where tencent takes over 100%
Maybe you missed:
Hong Kong-listed Tencent Mobility was granted Overseas Investment Office approval to buy up to 100 per cent of Kiwi video game developer Grinding Gear Games for more than $100 million.
Tencent Mobility - an online communication, advertising, and gaming service provider - was granted consent to acquire up to 100 per cent of the shares in Grinding Gear Games, 80 per cent up front and the remaining 20 per cent over approximately six years, a summary of the decision released today said.
I will help you with maths: 2018 + 6 = 2024 (Xolak will still be confused though, too complex)
I already gave you the answer before, but I can quote again: Now, if you are still not convinced (which is a total right you have) and want to keep arguying for nothing like your previous post, going on a subjective direction, please keep it to yourself.
Sorry psychodrive but you’ll have to eat that popcorn without the show.
I’m going to go ahead and say that the GGG and PoE business practices/acquisition history is off topic. I know it’s related to LE but it is a real stretch to say that it has anything to do with the trade survey.
If you would like to discuss another topic, please make another thread in the appropriate section.
It looks likely that a compromise solution is needed on this issue. Some give on both sides of the argument. So it got me thinking of what some of the motivations are on both sides of the argument could be
Arguments for open trade
i don’t have time to spend grinding to get good gear / powerful builds
whilst grinding for hours was the way in days gone by, it is boring and repetitive in the modern world with many other alternatives
i have money and where and how i spend it is my issue
Arguments for no trade
players should not be able to buy their way to the top of leaderboard / ladder will become exploited / taken over by bots
buying items diminishes the value and reward for grinding for gear
PtW and FtP players cannot compete with each other and playing field is vastly uneven
So what about an idea that trade is completely open with RMT (but with 0% reduction in drop rates) but that anyone wearing a purchased or traded item (i.e. the moment an item is gifted or sold / purchased it is tagged as such) is unable to be ranked / placed on ladder / compete in PvP when wearing any such item. The could be other variants but what i explained would be the basic idea.
Still equates to pay to win. With everything availible as rmt you can cruise to xxx corruption and once you have enough untainted bis items you just take off all the tainted and hop up the ladder. No different than players that mostly play in 4 person groups hopping on the solo leader boards in d3.
So let me get this straight. Your argument is that when someone grinds their way up the corruption ladder, and then grinds out all the non-Tainted BiS drops and then climbs up the ladder it will be bad? As opposed to say… someone getting carried in a group setting, handed BiS items by 3 other people, and then not actually grinding ANY gear on their way to the top of the ladder?
If your contention is that the initial set of items wasn’t “legit”, then any accomplishments after that fact are tainted, there’s really no real difference in the scenarios. Other than the gifted one has to actually sit in groups to have them give him gear.
But I do find it laughable that you actually have issues with someone still having to grind out their “legit” gear… thereby… playing the game, experiencing the thrill from item drops and generally spending a shit ton of time in game. You know, all those things that trade makes terrible in the first place.
Pay to win is pay to win is pay to win. If the developers think that your strawman scenario is an issue then there should be more restrictions on gifting as well. Such as level range requirements for the item to be marked as giftable to a particular party member or friend. This along with a friends for x amount of time played x hrs in the last x days loosening of the giftable to restriction. Add in a timer for how long that giftable tag lasts like 4 days and that would pretty much cover it. Couple that with increased target farming options, and tuning of drop rates and I think they would be pretty set. Did you see the poll on plebbit that came out 60/40 for as is or slightly less restrictive gifting? For clarification on what I mean by tuning of drop rates is I think they went a little overboard. It is fun for sure but…
I hate trading. That’s why i’m mainly playing SSF (Solo Self Found) in Path of Exile, except you’re still f***ed since the game was made with trade in mind as it’s an online F2P game to begin with.
I bought Last Epoch back then on the assumption it’ll be a great B2P solo HnS. Solo HnS being always way more fun loot-wise as they’re balanced entirely differently. You get a bit more “respect” for your time (as much as you can get in a HnS obviously, you’re still there to farm).
I’m curious to see what the results of the survey will be. If i had to guess, i’d assume most players want to be able to trade everything and easily, more than in PoE for instance. Ideally, if my prediction is confirmed, i’d hope to still have an offline choice or something to not get any loot penalty. Either ways, i’m sure i’ll still have fun when i’ll play it on release day.
Survey on plebbit(reddit) says otherwise. This is not PoE and I don’t believe the majority of players want to make it like PoE is were trade is concerned.
Considering the number of options and what they were, this is a bit deceiving. However, it’s true that about 50% of all reddit users who voted (452 out of 897) voted for either keeping it as is (27%) or only slightly less restrictive trading among friends (23%).
14% didn’t care to make a selection (they selected “Show Results”), and 18% want open trade. Then there are some between those, too, 18% want more restricted than open trade but a fair bit less restrictive.
I’m assuming there isn’t some other poll that also popped up. I didn’t see any others
If they want to keep trading some what limited I think it could be good to make LP3 and LP4 items not tradable while everything else, or mostly everything, is. I find it more enjoyable if I can farm a boss but if I don’t get the drop I wanted I still got closer to obtaining it by getting more currency to be able to buy it from someone else. The game also has a solo mode, which has no trading, that I enjoy playing. I don’t see a reason to limit trading so much when players have the choice to play solo with zero trading.
You would not be punished if the systems were separate.
Solo (the way it is), Item Gifting (the way the devs planned for 0.9) and Free Trade (with massive drop reduction), different experiences and totally separated systems. This is an incredible idea which will reinvent the wheel? No, of course not, this is a direct approach a lot of games went already, but still maybe a good solution. Ok, we will go back to the the debate of “not splitting the community” philosophy, although as I said, considering the replies, the community is already split, so to have or not have separated systems “to not split the community”, at this point, seems pointless.
