Quote:
Originally Posted by Doer
Getting back to the subject at hand, if you'll read the Wikipedia discussion of the tactics and business practices of the Anshe Chung company, you'll see alleged behaviors that are not only unsportsmanlike and exploitative of limitations or defects (AKA bugs) of virtual universes, but border very closely on illegal were similar things done IRL. To be fair, their own public face (their webpage) presents a different philosophy that does sound like just the kind of investor we need in EU: it sparkles better than any glossy bit of PR MA has whipped up over the years. My point in the previous post was not very well stated; we've had enough high-publicity events (from trapping to botting to auction exploits) this year without the participation of a team that may specialize in finding and using just such exploits to make a fortune at the expense of other virtual citizens. For my feelings on that possibility, i refer you to the quote in my sig. |
versus your initial post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doer
(From the other discussion on this)
The An She team is basically the ultimate market manipulator/reseller. While it is nice to see EU get recognized by the outside, i'm not sure it's a good thing that such an entity sees investment value in EU. All that says to me is, "We see sufficient loopholes in this universe to manipulate the market profitably."
Just some food for thought. |
Thank you for restating more completely your view. Your first post stated, without reservation that she is a manipulator/reseller. Your second post reflects the fact that those allegations are hearsay, true or not.
My problem is the generalization that investors are "bad" people. There are good and bad people in every business segment, conservative or high risk. So far on
EU we have been lucky to have had ethical investors, and it looks like we got lucky again. But there is nothing to prevent less ethical investors to take an interest in
EU, that's also part of the real economy.
I have never met An She or her husband and have had no dealing with her company, but it is blatantly obvious that the wiki entry is classic wiki bashing and, in addition, is also in contrast with the mostly positive opinions I have heard, first hand, from people who have had dealings with her. Keeping in mind that she DOES NOT control a market, but does offer a range of added value that others have not offered, at least not in the same scale or with the same effectiveness. That's hardly manipulation.
My point was mostly that, up until this auction,
EU was a village without any outside point of reference. We now have the first one, which is bound to bring more. That will have more significance for the future of
EU than the mall event in itself.
The uncertainty of future investment has been reduced and
EU has gained credibility.