Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by evolver1972

MMO games are kind of like life.  You don't necessarily need friends to play them, but they are much more fun with your friends.  Likewise, you don't need friends in life, but it's much more fun sharing it with your friends.  So, why do you need a game to force you to make friends?  Just go make friends and enjoy the game with them.

Are you guys really that anti social that you need to be forced into talking to people?  Are you the type of people who would stand at the wall next to the speakers at the dance and then complain that no one talked to you, and the dance planners didn't do enough to make it a social experience?

It's not rocket science.

Old argument.  You don't get it I think.

Some people want to play a game that require cooperation to do certain things.  I don't understand what is hard to get here?

You need cooperation of multiple people to raids in raiding game - why you're surprised that some people would like to play game where crafting, trade and parts of open world would also require group of people or interaction?

If you don't like games or activities like that they it is ok - you still will have huge majority of games that offer 90% of things in it avabile in very fast conveniant automatized ways.  You're now trying to force what views people shoud have and how ALL games should look like.  Embrace diversity.

I'm not trying to force anyone into any belief.  Not sure where you got that idea.  I'm merely asking why someone feels they need to be forced to be social.  Rather than having games that allow for being social, i.e. grouping, dungeons, etc.

 

So, you're right, I don't get why people need to be forced to do something if they can't just do it on their own.  Then when they don't do it on their own, they get upset and say it's the developers fault.  Yeah, I don't get that at all.

Ok.  One question.

What do you think about an idea to make ALL dungeons and raids avabile for solo player to complete and get same rewards as group does ?

Ok.  One question.

What do you think about an idea to make ALL dungeons and raids avabile for solo player to complete and get same rewards as group does ?

that's the way it is now gimmie gimmie now now now

welcome to 2012

sucks most of the true rpg players are going back to solo rpgs not mmo's (at least i am)

Originally posted by fenistil

 

Ok.  One question.

What do you think about an idea to make ALL dungeons and raids avabile for solo player to complete and get same rewards as group does ?

Great. Nothing wrong with that. This is just like Diablo 3. Same random drops in solo or group play. I will choose depending on whether i am in a mood to play with others.

Originally posted by vonryan123

 

sucks most of the true rpg players are going back to solo rpgs not mmo's (at least i am)

It is not like the MMO market needs "true rpg players". There are more than 47M mmo players just in the US, and the market is multiple billion strong.

Originally posted by vonryan123

sucks most of the true rpg players are going back to solo rpgs not mmo's (at least i am)

Yeah, speak for yourself.

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by evolver1972

MMO games are kind of like life.  You don't necessarily need friends to play them, but they are much more fun with your friends.  Likewise, you don't need friends in life, but it's much more fun sharing it with your friends.  So, why do you need a game to force you to make friends?  Just go make friends and enjoy the game with them.

Are you guys really that anti social that you need to be forced into talking to people?  Are you the type of people who would stand at the wall next to the speakers at the dance and then complain that no one talked to you, and the dance planners didn't do enough to make it a social experience?

It's not rocket science.

Old argument.  You don't get it I think.

Some people want to play a game that require cooperation to do certain things.  I don't understand what is hard to get here?

You need cooperation of multiple people to raids in raiding game - why you're surprised that some people would like to play game where crafting, trade and parts of open world would also require group of people or interaction?

If you don't like games or activities like that they it is ok - you still will have huge majority of games that offer 90% of things in it avabile in very fast conveniant automatized ways.  You're now trying to force what views people shoud have and how ALL games should look like.  Embrace diversity.

I'm not trying to force anyone into any belief.  Not sure where you got that idea.  I'm merely asking why someone feels they need to be forced to be social.  Rather than having games that allow for being social, i.e. grouping, dungeons, etc.

 

So, you're right, I don't get why people need to be forced to do something if they can't just do it on their own.  Then when they don't do it on their own, they get upset and say it's the developers fault.  Yeah, I don't get that at all.

As I said earlier, it's like playing cards.  People meet up with their buddies for poker, but you never heard of people meeting for solitaire.  That would be daft.

I want to play a game with other people, not just talk to them while we're all playing by ourselves.  Some games require more than one player to be fun.  The economy game is fun to me, but only if I can play it with other people.  That's only possible if the game mechanics support it, and if people aren't "forced" to follow a reasonable set of rules, there is no game.

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by evolver1972

MMO games are kind of like life.  You don't necessarily need friends to play them, but they are much more fun with your friends.  Likewise, you don't need friends in life, but it's much more fun sharing it with your friends.  So, why do you need a game to force you to make friends?  Just go make friends and enjoy the game with them.

Are you guys really that anti social that you need to be forced into talking to people?  Are you the type of people who would stand at the wall next to the speakers at the dance and then complain that no one talked to you, and the dance planners didn't do enough to make it a social experience?

It's not rocket science.

Old argument.  You don't get it I think.

Some people want to play a game that require cooperation to do certain things.  I don't understand what is hard to get here?

You need cooperation of multiple people to raids in raiding game - why you're surprised that some people would like to play game where crafting, trade and parts of open world would also require group of people or interaction?

If you don't like games or activities like that they it is ok - you still will have huge majority of games that offer 90% of things in it avabile in very fast conveniant automatized ways.  You're now trying to force what views people shoud have and how ALL games should look like.  Embrace diversity.

I'm not trying to force anyone into any belief.  Not sure where you got that idea.  I'm merely asking why someone feels they need to be forced to be social.  Rather than having games that allow for being social, i.e. grouping, dungeons, etc.

 

So, you're right, I don't get why people need to be forced to do something if they can't just do it on their own.  Then when they don't do it on their own, they get upset and say it's the developers fault.  Yeah, I don't get that at all.

Ok.  One question.

What do you think about an idea to make ALL dungeons and raids avabile for solo player to complete and get same rewards as group does ?

If a dev wants to make a game like that, I have no problem with it.  Would I play it?  Probably.  I'd probably run it both ways.  That's what I've been saying.  To me, it's better when you have the choice.  Sometimes I would make the choice to group with others, sometimes not.  I see nothing wrong with having that choice.

I'll never understand I guess why some people need to be forced to do things they claim are the best things to do.  If the game's mechanics allow for both styles of play without penalty and you think the best way to play is in a group, then get a group together.  However, if someone wants to run it by themselves, I see nothing wrong with that either.  People play different ways, and I'm glad some developers have decided to respect that.

Originally posted by Impacatus

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by evolver1972

MMO games are kind of like life.  You don't necessarily need friends to play them, but they are much more fun with your friends.  Likewise, you don't need friends in life, but it's much more fun sharing it with your friends.  So, why do you need a game to force you to make friends?  Just go make friends and enjoy the game with them.

Are you guys really that anti social that you need to be forced into talking to people?  Are you the type of people who would stand at the wall next to the speakers at the dance and then complain that no one talked to you, and the dance planners didn't do enough to make it a social experience?

It's not rocket science.

Old argument.  You don't get it I think.

Some people want to play a game that require cooperation to do certain things.  I don't understand what is hard to get here?

You need cooperation of multiple people to raids in raiding game - why you're surprised that some people would like to play game where crafting, trade and parts of open world would also require group of people or interaction?

If you don't like games or activities like that they it is ok - you still will have huge majority of games that offer 90% of things in it avabile in very fast conveniant automatized ways.  You're now trying to force what views people shoud have and how ALL games should look like.  Embrace diversity.

I'm not trying to force anyone into any belief.  Not sure where you got that idea.  I'm merely asking why someone feels they need to be forced to be social.  Rather than having games that allow for being social, i.e. grouping, dungeons, etc.

 

So, you're right, I don't get why people need to be forced to do something if they can't just do it on their own.  Then when they don't do it on their own, they get upset and say it's the developers fault.  Yeah, I don't get that at all.

As I said earlier, it's like playing cards.  People meet up with their buddies for poker, but you never heard of people meeting for solitaire.  That would be daft.

I want to play a game with other people, not just talk to them while we're all playing by ourselves.  Some games require more than one player to be fun.  The economy game is fun to me, but only if I can play it with other people.  That's only possible if the game mechanics support it, and if people aren't "forced" to follow a reasonable set of rules, there is no game.

Solitaire is a game developed specifically for one person.  Poker is a game specifically for more than one.  Your analogy breaks down in that I'm talking about games that are developed with both styles of play in mind.  A closer analogy would be poker you could play by yourself, if you wanted, or solitaire that a group of people could play together.

It's all about choices.

EDIT:  Sorry, guys.  One of these days I'll get the hang of the multiquote function.  :)

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by evolver1972

MMO games are kind of like life.  You don't necessarily need friends to play them, but they are much more fun with your friends.  Likewise, you don't need friends in life, but it's much more fun sharing it with your friends.  So, why do you need a game to force you to make friends?  Just go make friends and enjoy the game with them.

Are you guys really that anti social that you need to be forced into talking to people?  Are you the type of people who would stand at the wall next to the speakers at the dance and then complain that no one talked to you, and the dance planners didn't do enough to make it a social experience?

It's not rocket science.

Old argument.  You don't get it I think.

Some people want to play a game that require cooperation to do certain things.  I don't understand what is hard to get here?

You need cooperation of multiple people to raids in raiding game - why you're surprised that some people would like to play game where crafting, trade and parts of open world would also require group of people or interaction?

If you don't like games or activities like that they it is ok - you still will have huge majority of games that offer 90% of things in it avabile in very fast conveniant automatized ways.  You're now trying to force what views people shoud have and how ALL games should look like.  Embrace diversity.

I'm not trying to force anyone into any belief.  Not sure where you got that idea.  I'm merely asking why someone feels they need to be forced to be social.  Rather than having games that allow for being social, i.e. grouping, dungeons, etc.

 

So, you're right, I don't get why people need to be forced to do something if they can't just do it on their own.  Then when they don't do it on their own, they get upset and say it's the developers fault.  Yeah, I don't get that at all.

Ok.  One question.

What do you think about an idea to make ALL dungeons and raids avabile for solo player to complete and get same rewards as group does ?

If a dev wants to make a game like that, I have no problem with it.  Would I play it?  Probably.  I'd probably run it both ways.  That's what I've been saying.  To me, it's better when you have the choice.  Sometimes I would make the choice to group with others, sometimes not.  I see nothing wrong with having that choice.

 

I'll never understand I guess why some people need to be forced to do things they claim are the best things to do.  If the game's mechanics allow for both styles of play without penalty and you think the best way to play is in a group, then get a group together.  However, if someone wants to run it by themselves, I see nothing wrong with that either.  People play different ways, and I'm glad some developers have decided to respect that.

Thing is there is always penalty.  If you have same rewards solo and group, then crushing majority of people will go solo option because it is more effective.   You can go solo immedietaly,  while for a group even if you like and play game with auto LFG system it takes time.   So grouping is penalized. 

If you give bigger rewards for doing it in the group, then you penalize those who want to play only solo.

This was proven to be true both with group quests and scalable instances (like Lotro skirmishes).

---------------

Another thing.    Now we have 2012.  It is not 1997 where you had in west basically one mmorpg avablable in west or even 1999 when you had ~4 of them.   Nowadays it is wide market with dozens of mmorpg's. 

So have you considered granting people a choice?  Instead forcing certain game design upon people which you think is best, maybe just accept that there are other people who want to play with similar minded people in game that they prefer?

Noone is forcing you. You can just simply don't play if there is a game with mechanics or design you just like. 

Forcing argument is simply not true, as noone can force you to play certain game.  Why would you even decide to play it.

In example I bought GW2. It is fine game, but I found that I don't like it. I stopped playing, discussed a bit about it and that's it problem solved. I don't go trying to convince me that anyone forced me to play it or complain that it should be changed.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by vonryan123

 

sucks most of the true rpg players are going back to solo rpgs not mmo's (at least i am)

It is not like the MMO market needs "true rpg players". There are more than 47M mmo players just in the US, and the market is multiple billion strong.

 

"True rpg players" (or sandbox players or whatever) = the speaker, whoever that is.

My grandma used to say "all right-thinking people", to indicate that everyone sensible (self-evidently) thought exactly as she did.

In the 80s, it was the Moral Majority.

In the 00s, it was the Tea Party.

This shouldn't require any explanation in a society that votes, of course...politicians love to use that trick repeatedly.  Particularly 'reform' candidates.

Originally posted by Jemcrystal

Why are you people constantly obsessing over socializing in games?  You sound like homemaker wives who buzz a dude's ear off and he just wants to relax, eat his pizza, watch sports and go to bed.  If you want to talk so much join a quilting club not an mmo.

I don't know what the other think, but i  when speak of "socialization", i am talking about political, economic and military relations with other real humans, no the "talking" or "grouping" (although these actions are necessary to interactions).

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by evolver1972

MMO games are kind of like life.  You don't necessarily need friends to play them, but they are much more fun with your friends.  Likewise, you don't need friends in life, but it's much more fun sharing it with your friends.  So, why do you need a game to force you to make friends?  Just go make friends and enjoy the game with them.

Are you guys really that anti social that you need to be forced into talking to people?  Are you the type of people who would stand at the wall next to the speakers at the dance and then complain that no one talked to you, and the dance planners didn't do enough to make it a social experience?

It's not rocket science.

Old argument.  You don't get it I think.

Some people want to play a game that require cooperation to do certain things.  I don't understand what is hard to get here?

You need cooperation of multiple people to raids in raiding game - why you're surprised that some people would like to play game where crafting, trade and parts of open world would also require group of people or interaction?

If you don't like games or activities like that they it is ok - you still will have huge majority of games that offer 90% of things in it avabile in very fast conveniant automatized ways.  You're now trying to force what views people shoud have and how ALL games should look like.  Embrace diversity.

I'm not trying to force anyone into any belief.  Not sure where you got that idea.  I'm merely asking why someone feels they need to be forced to be social.  Rather than having games that allow for being social, i.e. grouping, dungeons, etc.

 

So, you're right, I don't get why people need to be forced to do something if they can't just do it on their own.  Then when they don't do it on their own, they get upset and say it's the developers fault.  Yeah, I don't get that at all.

Ok.  One question.

What do you think about an idea to make ALL dungeons and raids avabile for solo player to complete and get same rewards as group does ?

If a dev wants to make a game like that, I have no problem with it.  Would I play it?  Probably.  I'd probably run it both ways.  That's what I've been saying.  To me, it's better when you have the choice.  Sometimes I would make the choice to group with others, sometimes not.  I see nothing wrong with having that choice.

 

I'll never understand I guess why some people need to be forced to do things they claim are the best things to do.  If the game's mechanics allow for both styles of play without penalty and you think the best way to play is in a group, then get a group together.  However, if someone wants to run it by themselves, I see nothing wrong with that either.  People play different ways, and I'm glad some developers have decided to respect that.

Thing is there is always penalty.  If you have same rewards solo and group, then crushing majority of people will go solo option because it is more effective.   You can go solo immedietaly,  while for a group even if you like and play game with auto LFG system it takes time.   So grouping is penalized. 

If you give bigger rewards for doing it in the group, then you penalize those who want to play only solo.

This was proven to be true both with group quests and scalable instances (like Lotro skirmishes).

 

---------------

Another thing.    Now we have 2012.  It is not 1997 where you had in west basically one mmorpg avablable in west or even 1999 when you had ~4 of them.   Nowadays it is wide market with dozens of mmorpg's. 

So have you considered granting people a choice?  Instead forcing certain game design upon people which you think is best, maybe just accept that there are other people who want to play with similar minded people in game that they prefer?

Noone is forcing you. You can just simply don't play if there is a game with mechanics or design you just like. 

Forcing argument is simply not true, as noone can force you to play certain game.  Why would you even decide to play it.

In example I bought GW2. It is fine game, but I found that I don't like it. I stopped playing, discussed a bit about it and that's it problem solved. I don't go trying to convince me that anyone forced me to play it or complain that it should be changed.

I totally agree with you.  I don't think every game should be made the same, with the same mechanics.  How boring.  But the OP was basically saying they needed to be forced to socialize and I ask, why?  There are plenty of games out there that allow for both solo and group play.  There are also many that cater to group play.  And there are those that cater more to solo play.  I have no problem with any of them.

That's been my point all along, give people a choice.  If there are games that cater to "forcing grouping", games that "force solo play", and games allowing for both, I don't see a problem.

Originally posted by evolver1972

 

I totally agree with you.  I don't think every game should be made the same, with the same mechanics.  How boring.  But the OP was basically saying they needed to be forced to socialize and I ask, why?  There are plenty of games out there that allow for both solo and group play.  There are also many that cater to group play.  And there are those that cater more to solo play.  I have no problem with any of them.

 

That's been my point all along, give people a choice.  If there are games that cater to "forcing grouping", games that "force solo play", and games allowing for both, I don't see a problem.

You seem to be under impression that OP is on some sort of fanatical crusade in order to change all or most mmorpg's. 

Hell no, at least I did not get that impression.  Me myself - I don't want to change anyone's game. Seriously - if someone like GW2 in a way it is designed atm?  Nice, grats you found some mmorpg you like.  I am very far from wanting to change it.

If someone like WoW - nice go and knock yourself out having fun. 

I just would like also to have game or two well done mmorpg's that have difftent design one that is about cooperation and interdependability.   Nothing more, nothing less.   Seriously I am not telling you that your mmorpg's are bad or I am not ranting about how mmorpg's have to change.

Just would be fun to actually have some small but well made niche with an actually qualiity game for gamers similar to me. 

Originally posted by evolver1972

Solitaire is a game developed specifically for one person.  Poker is a game specifically for more than one.  Your analogy breaks down in that I'm talking about games that are developed with both styles of play in mind.  A closer analogy would be poker you could play by yourself, if you wanted, or solitaire that a group of people could play together.

 

It's all about choices.

That may be true for the combat side of the game.

The game of crafting and trading is indeed a game specifically for more than one.  Some of us want to find a virtual world in which we can play it.  People ask why we want to be "forced to interact", well it's for the same reason that poker players want to be "forced to interact".

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by vonryan123

sucks most of the true rpg players are going back to solo rpgs not mmo's (at least i am)

Yeah, speak for yourself.

see the part that says "At Least i am" ......I am speaking for myself .....

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Indol

I think nixing the idea of the AH goes hand in hand with nixing global chat.

 

A realistic approach to player interaction is more conducive to immersing people in a world than one that people can associate with forums or IM'ing which will cause people to act differently than if communcation and interaction were all done in the context of the actual game.

Which is exactly what i do NOT want. "realistic" is not necessarily fun to me. I want cross realm grouping. I want IM chat. I am not livnig a second life, i am playing a multiplayer game. Anything that makes playing with people easier (like NOT restricting me to people on a server) is a GOOD thing in my book.

You, and others like you are the reason that all games are being made the same way, and thus, the reason many games can't hold a lot of peoples attention past the first month. I've said this to you MANY times, LEAVE THOSE WHO WANT A DIFFERENT GAME ALONE! It's all well and good that you feel the need to present your argument for making all games the same, but you need to understand that other people have different interests that don't need to coincide with what you believe is "GOOD". Every thread that has someones opinion on what they don't like in a game, is shortly followed up by you stating how what is already being done, should be continued. The OP is not arguing for ALL games to have it removed, nor is he arguing that all games going forward should have the AH removed either. He is sharing an opinion, you are sharing your's, but regardless of anyone elses opinion, you come back and try to find a way to nicely state they are wrong. 

What make your interests more important than mine? If you can talk about it, so can i. And i just say what is fun for me .. no different than you.

Thank everything that the world of gaming doesnt revolve around you. Otherwise I'd have no hopes for an MMO to come around and capture my attention span for more than a month. You remind me of that guy who bought GW2 and started complaining it should be more like WoW, when it already is a lot like WoW. Heaven forbid one game is different! (even if GW2 is pretty standard, but down scaled).

Neither revolve around you. We all vote with our wallets. We willl see whose preferences devs pay attention to. And i do like different games. Borderland 2 is very different from Diablo3, and very different from WOW.

And why would i care if you have no MMO to play? That is not my problem.

 

You seem to neglect the point that you present your argument as correct and everyone elses as wrong. Also, you bringing up co-op/standard multiplayer games in no way contributes to an argument about an MMO. You bring up Diablo 3 so often....

And thankfully, people are voting with their wallets. You and your "I want the same thing over and over" clique is starting to become a minority. Devs are starting to notice that catering to you and others like you is only profitable for the short term.

Also, nothing makes my interests more important, what I tried to point out that you neglect over and over again, is that my opinion leaves room for everyones play style. I don't feel that every MMO needs to be the same so that you can hop in and try it for a month before leaving. If there are games I don't like, thats fine. They don't need to change for ME. And there are MMO's I like. Just nothing that great at the moment.

I'm sure you will just brush off all logic and continue on your crusade to make everything the same. Fuck innovation right? Trying something different is scary!!!!

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Indol

I think nixing the idea of the AH goes hand in hand with nixing global chat.

 

A realistic approach to player interaction is more conducive to immersing people in a world than one that people can associate with forums or IM'ing which will cause people to act differently than if communcation and interaction were all done in the context of the actual game.

Which is exactly what i do NOT want. "realistic" is not necessarily fun to me. I want cross realm grouping. I want IM chat. I am not livnig a second life, i am playing a multiplayer game. Anything that makes playing with people easier (like NOT restricting me to people on a server) is a GOOD thing in my book.

You, and others like you are the reason that all games are being made the same way, and thus, the reason many games can't hold a lot of peoples attention past the first month. I've said this to you MANY times, LEAVE THOSE WHO WANT A DIFFERENT GAME ALONE! It's all well and good that you feel the need to present your argument for making all games the same, but you need to understand that other people have different interests that don't need to coincide with what you believe is "GOOD". Every thread that has someones opinion on what they don't like in a game, is shortly followed up by you stating how what is already being done, should be continued. The OP is not arguing for ALL games to have it removed, nor is he arguing that all games going forward should have the AH removed either. He is sharing an opinion, you are sharing your's, but regardless of anyone elses opinion, you come back and try to find a way to nicely state they are wrong. 

What make your interests more important than mine? If you can talk about it, so can i. And i just say what is fun for me .. no different than you.

Thank everything that the world of gaming doesnt revolve around you. Otherwise I'd have no hopes for an MMO to come around and capture my attention span for more than a month. You remind me of that guy who bought GW2 and started complaining it should be more like WoW, when it already is a lot like WoW. Heaven forbid one game is different! (even if GW2 is pretty standard, but down scaled).

Neither revolve around you. We all vote with our wallets. We willl see whose preferences devs pay attention to. And i do like different games. Borderland 2 is very different from Diablo3, and very different from WOW.

And why would i care if you have no MMO to play? That is not my problem.

 

You seem to neglect the point that you present your argument as correct and everyone elses as wrong. Also, you bringing up co-op/standard multiplayer games in no way contributes to an argument about an MMO. You bring up Diablo 3 so often....

And thankfully, people are voting with their wallets. You and your "I want the same thing over and over" clique is starting to become a minority. Devs are starting to notice that catering to you and others like you is only profitable for the short term.

Also, nothing makes my interests more important, what I tried to point out that you neglect over and over again, is that my opinion leaves room for everyones play style. I don't feel that every MMO needs to be the same so that you can hop in and try it for a month before leaving. If there are games I don't like, thats fine. They don't need to change for ME. And there are MMO's I like. Just nothing that great at the moment.

I'm sure you will just brush off all logic and continue on your crusade to make everything the same. Fuck innovation right? Trying something different is scary!!!!

And D3 sold 10M copies. Borderlands 2 is a big success. WOW sold 2.7M copies of MOP first week (looks like a decline but a huge success most companies would dream of) and add 1M subs.

So i highly doubt i will have a lack of game to play. And who says anything about them being the same? And what does that have anything to do with game hopping? The point of game hopping is to play something DIFFERENT.

Originally posted by nethervoid
Funny how the original MMOs, namely UO had this right. lol Taken us 15 years to figure out that an auction house is a bad idea.

Bad idea? I am sure that is why it has become a STANDARD feature, and even implemented in non-MMOs.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid
Funny how the original MMOs, namely UO had this right. lol Taken us 15 years to figure out that an auction house is a bad idea.

Bad idea? I am sure that is why it has become a STANDARD feature, and even implemented in non-MMOs.

Probably because it suits non mmos more.

One central AH is a bad idea if you want to include a complex, economical meta game in your mmo for the players to get involved in. More meta game = increase social interaction. It is a good idea if you just want to make the game as accessible as possible regardless as to loss of depth/gameplay/social features.

So it is bad for a complex, community driven mmo. It is good for a pick up and play, just want to LFG RAID game. Horses for courses really.