Celtic Heroes

I might as well chime in. (against the Platform-wide, for the record)
My reason to be against it is fairly simple.
The more of a good in the market, the less the value of that good.
Combining 18 different servers (ios and Android) theoretically increases any good by 18x.
The prices on most goods would drop exponentially.
The buying power of 10k would increase exponentially.
Rare items, such as my 85% Cranfir Spiritsteed, (the only one on Belenus) would lose their weight in the market.
The more items there are, the less they are worth.
Simple economics.
#PlatformWideIsDumb

Platform-wide would never work, but I think they're arguing a few similar servers. Auction house would go e.g X + Y + A and then it changes depending. Some servers will only go within 2 for trading, perhaps the biggest would be on their own and maybe the smallest would go together or something. There's lots of ways it can be made to work, just people aren't thinking about the flexibility of it.

*I don't care what happens, this is just something I'm throwing in

Obviously it's OTM and they're pretty much going to do what they want to do regardless of our opinions. And now that I think about it, arguing about the ramifications of a video game economy seems just silly.

Eh. If a large majority of the community says no they probably would take that into account. With this matter there are more people saying and giving arguments as to the faults of this than for the benefits. This is an old issue, and time and time again people argue against it.

Zyz is right in one aspect, OTM will do whatever is beneficial to their company. Having plat items readily available to all worlds does not benefit OTM one bit. If it did, they would've launched a universal AH at release.
Only the bottom line matters. OTM couldn't care less about how much a white lanrik pants go for in the open market. In this case, it coincides with what we have been saying, so all is well.

Aileron, yes definitely agree that CH is a company. They may listen to opinions, but they must decide what they think is best for long term stable earnings. Yep yep.

Bobthemage, I am not advocating for or against a cross-server AH. The main reasoning for would be likely utilitarian: if many had more access than before an AH, then thats a boon to the many, which outweighs the harm to the few, according to a utilitarian argument. The main reasoning against is the old tried-and-true axiom: if it aint broke, dont fix it; this axiom benefits known over unknown to minimize any risk of unintended consequences whether risk of a possible boon or a possible crash.

Reason is there for those who look. There are many other reasons that I see here (and if we read up on economics elsewhere) for and against; but again only if we wish to look for the reason. I would caution against rage and 'tf' language because it tends toward torch wars devoid of reason - let cooler minds prevail; be the change we wish to see by articulating sequential reasoning rather than unhappy emotion.

Returning to the CH business, my experience in database implementations (of which I am not the expert) is that a bare-bones single server AH would be attempted first for at least 12 months before attempting anything more clever. Quality products and quality experiences can justify higher prices and margins, thus contributing to future CH quality rollouts;) on that note, my guess would be that CH would rollout a basic AH first - and their internally reasoned opinion on the mechanical feasability is more important than any of our reasons or opinions on the perceived economic consequences (all speculative regardless of the length of the treatise because we cannot predict the future with 100% certainty).