Minor nitpick (I like to post those, don't I? I'm sorry!) and it's probably already been pointed out, but: I suspect the quote means "the amount that it costs to produce an item is the same for all items of the same level, and the amount that it costs to purchase an item is the same for all items of the same level", not "the amount that it costs to produce a ninth level item is the same as the amount that it costs to purchase a ninth level item, and this amount is equal for all ninth level items"Irda Ranger said:Besides the total nonsensicalness of that statement (it practically violates a law of physics to imagine a good that costs the same at market as to produce), I don't think that leads to assumed wealth guidelines. It's just a cost to produce. The 4E system seems to be built such that you can have as much or as little magic as you want, and as long as everyone in the party has the same amount, game on. One playtest report specifically mentioned how they got all the way to 10th level without a single item being handed out, and no one really noticed.
At the very least, I really, really hope you're wrong. The wealth & item requirements in 3E were its hands-down worst feature, and one of the main reasons I gave up on the game. This may seem like an extreme statement, but if 4E still has wealth-by-level requirements, I will consider the whole project a failure. I realize it won't be failure in everyone's eyes, but it will be in mine. I'll just have to stick to Iron Heroes and Conan until they're updated to 4E Core mechanics.
I had a brief freak out period in an old campaign where I had a nation of scholar-mages who used as their currency standardized potions and scrolls (with spellcraft checks to read them at DC 5 -- and the occasional cursed scroll being merely the cost of doing business as a moneylender!). Their moneychangers ran the magic-marts, and invested heavily in gemstones and slave-trading with the outside world. You do otherwise run out of raw ore pretty quickly.