Real Money Inside in MMORPGs? 417
Cranial writes "Sony Interactive expressly forbids the selling of Everqest or Everquest II ingame items or characters for money, but why? Imagine Massively Multiplayer Games where you can actually cash out your loot in the real world.
What if that jewel in the dragon hoard was actually a digital title for the Hope Diamond or a real ancient artifact?
This article on Programmers Heaven proposes a new economic model for MM games allowing free exchange of game money and items in the real world. Essentially it is a hybridization between online gaming (casino) and MM roleplaying games. Fascinating concept."
There.com (Score:4, Insightful)
Or at least they used to when I played the beta months ago before they started spamming my inbox.
there's good reason not to allow it (Score:5, Insightful)
well, at that point it (Score:5, Insightful)
You will also lose in revenue from people who want to play for fun. because they will never get an opportunity to get 'valauable items'
what happens when you spen 20 hourse getting a real valuable item, then the company decided to put 1000 od them in the game the next day? How valauble is something that can be created infinite times?
Bugs are a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
The advantage to a system where in-game objects don't have (recognized) real value is that bugs aren't lethal to the parent company, and the game can be revised and the game database directly edited with impunity.
Make money in the game real, and suddenly the parent company has to be a lot more careful, and is a lot more liable if things go wrong (as actual damage has provably occurred to the players).
Security (Score:2, Insightful)
It just isn't worth the headache for them. Maybe some other games can solve this.
Fascinatinc concept? more like bad idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think I'd want to play in a game world that activly encouraged that.
There's another name for this... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called GAMBLING.
I don't think it's a very good idea.
Difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Mind you I don't like the idea either way, seems like an excuse to get some evercrack: "but I swear, this is how I make my living... yes it's from mom's basement"...
-Matt
liability issues (Score:3, Insightful)
the problem is it's virtually impossible to design a hackproof system -- nearly all modern mmorpgs have had instances of bugs where people dupe items or otherwise illegally generate money. eventually word gets out about them because everyone wants that advantage, but it's really different when $ is involved; if someone on one of these games found an exploit like that then they could embezzle practically unlimited amounts of $. and even worse, if an exploit became widespread then the whole economy could be totally screwed up, and people would be losing *real money*.
so the problem always ends up that no developer could reasonably shoulder that much liability -- it's bad enough with people bitching about losing imaginary items but if someone gets cleaned out of actual assets and $ then (ianal, but i believe) they can sue and the developer could actually be found liable.
my 2c
-fren
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Security (Score:2, Insightful)
> One of the biggest reasons that SOE forbids these transfers is that they cannot take on the responsibilities of making the transactions secure. What about duping bugs? Or an 'accidental' deletion? Fraud? Fraud is a really major problem in SWG right now.
Or a hackattack like the one reported here a few months ago, where barbarians crack the game, teleport everyone to a city at the bottom of the sea, bonk their sheep, and cash in their virtual savings accounts.
This will ruin the game. (Score:4, Insightful)
The game will end up with a bunch of more wealthy less experienced people running the lives of the geeks who spent all their time aquiring the items. The FUN of these games is that ANYONE regardless of status in the REAL world can become someone great. If money from the real world gets involved, that destroys the fantasy because not everyone will be on an equal footing when they start out.
That is one of the big reasons I think these games are so much fun.
Re:well, at that point it (Score:1, Insightful)
In the real world though, you're stuck with that
Horrible Idea (Score:1, Insightful)
The fantasy value thing is important. If I get upset and throw the board over, mess up everybody's money and property cards, and make the game unfinishable, you cannot take me to small claims court to regain your $10. It was a game and had no real world value except the enjoyment you get from winning. But this fantasy (and quite perverse) value you get has no connection to reality. However, when the game goes digital and geeks get involved, and somebody does the digital equivalent of throwing the board over (read: hacking the system), they think they should get money for in-game items. What? The logical step doesn't make sense. Why can I not get my $10 back from a Monopoly game, yet you can from your MMORPG?
However, now people want to tie real-world money and property to in-game objects. This is just waiting for disaster.
If a fantasy game item was tied to a real-world item or fantasy game money was tied to real-world money, then the person that runs the game and servers becomes a bank in a classical sense: they hold receipts that people expect to be able to claim on (ie: whenever the player logs onto the game, he claim the items, and whever the player logs off, he deposits them for later reclaiming).
They also become responsible under gaming laws since the MMORPG has turned into a sort of casino where people bet they can collect more in-game resources than others. It's just advanced video poker. Picture having a similar video machine in a casino linked to other casinos where geographically seperated players put chips in to play and cash chips out when they are done.
Sure, go ahead and turn MMORPGs into casinos and banks, but they should be regulated as such too. That would make it clear that it is not just a game and a hacker would face much more serious changes. Until MMORPGs are held to those standards though, it is just a game and should be treated as such.
Lots of problems supporting it (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Taxation on profits. If people were making a living in this virtual world, the tax collectors would want their take. Just like casinos, the game companies would end up with some responsibility for collecting witholding for states, federal, and maybe even foreign countries. And just like casinos, they would probably need to somehow allow players to track losses as well for tax purposes. This is complicated by the fact that most of what is going on can easily be disguised with "gifts", "barter" transactions, with cash being exchanged on the side.
2) If a bug "poofs" a valuable item, and they support the idea that the item can have a real cash value, then they just became liable for the loss. Same with dupe bugs as has already been mentioned. The same idea would apply to "fraudulent" trades made by players, making the game company potentially liable for the players' loss.
3) Suspending or banning a player could potentially lead to a lawsuit based on loss of income, and the game company might have to prove to a court that the suspension/banning was justified, almost like an employment related lawsuit.
4) Can you say money laundering? Think a game company wants their name on that?
5) Any change to the game that affected the economy (which would probably be most of them) could end up screwing certain players. If you thought of the items and virtual money as stocks and real cash, the game company basically has the power to screw prices however they want. If they're officially supporting these cash equivalents, they would most likely be accused of corruption on a daily basis.
The list could go on, I think you get the idea. I'm sure companies will continue to try this idea, but as someone already mentioned, the other effect is that if a significant number of people are in it for the money, it will basically suck most of the fun out of the game for the people who are "just playing", and the whole model would likely collapse because no one would play so the economy would never get off the ground (basically you'd have a big lack of consumers).
By *not* supporting it officially and at least discouraging the idea if not strictly policing it, I think it actually can "work" better, because the company shifts all the liability to the players, and minimizes the effect of it on the game so that players don't feel like they're surrounded by ripoff artists.
Re:Wasn't real money per se.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone points out down-thread, what little role playing goes on would be further reduced as people focused on the game-as-gateway-to-real-world-(money) as opposed to game-as-gateway-to-fantasy-world.
However. If you had a nearly hack-proof game (impossible?) and if you had some kind of (nearly magic) game balancing that rewards role playing in terms that could come out as cash (some kind of role playing moderation points system?) then, well, how @#%(*&)! exciting would it be if you finally kill that boss mob you've been working on for a week and low and behold, he drops a diamond worth $50 on ebay (presuming it's not so 1337 you just want to keep it for your character). This would add some of the gambling-adrenaline rush and would be really, really fun. PVP that could cost you cash? I mean, if and when video games combine with the fun/(addictive) elements of gambling god save me and my kind.
But mostly it's a bad idea. Imagine, if you will, what would happen to slashdot if karma points could be traded for cash on ebay?
Re:Wasn't real money per se.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:project entropia (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. After all with other video games you pay an upfront cost (assuming you don't bootleg a copy) to gain access to all the content in a game. To take it further, some times people buy expansion packs that add new content onto their existing game. So on smaller scale, it does make sense for some people to spend some amount of money on in game items if they feel it improves their game experience. Now whether or not Johnny should have spent $1000 on his brand new +5 Staff of Asskicking is another question, but the core idea of paying for in-game items isn't fundamentally bad.
Personally, I'm happy to just pay the $40 up front to get access to my flak cannon and rocket launcher.
the existence of which is dependent on the solvency of the parent company and their desire to maintain the service.
The existence of any subscription based service is always dependent on these things, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't spend a little extra money if you feel it gets you better service. e.g. My local newspaper only costs 25 cents an issue at a newsstand, but something like 50 cents an issue to have it delivered. Plenty of people pay for this service even though any extra money they spend on a subscription may be lost if the paper goes under.
Re:Liability (Score:4, Insightful)
At one time the island of Yap in the S. Pacific used large stones wheels as currency. Mostly ownership of the stones changed hands while the stones stayed put. During one attempt to move a stone by boat a storm blew up and the stone sank to the bottom of the ocean.
The Yap equivalent of the US Federal Reserve met and decided that because the money was lost accidentally, there was no reason that the person didn't still own it, and title to that stone continued to circulate as money. (Couldn't find a current reference, but the original story came with the instructor's notes to Mankiw's intermediate macroeconomic text.)
So all they really need are virtual titles to the virtual objects that no longer exist...
Re:There is There... (Score:4, Insightful)
The signpost system is abused heavily by users, so that other areas of the world have the scenic views disrupted by billboards.
Completed scavenger hunts are never removed from the field; many ties I completed a hunt only to get to the end of the hunt and to find the sign edited to say that it ended last week (they couldn't be bothered to edit *each* of the signs, or pull them from the world.)
The member-run trivia nights are a joke; public events where the prizes are given to friends fo the hosts. If you want to give Sally a ball, just give her the ball. Don't go through the rigamarole of running a music trivia event and picking Sally to answer the high-point questions regardless of when she raised her hand.
"But it's all about social interaction!" you may cry. No, real life is about social interaction. Games are about competing to have fun.
I'd bet dollars to donuts... (Score:2, Insightful)
Definately... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, games are a fantasy, an escape from the day to day pressures of reality. If I wanted to see people lie to get money, cheat to get money, choose profit over human compassion etc. then all I need to do is....um, go out the front door.
Re:well, at that point it (Score:4, Insightful)
it also implies an opportunity to make a buck. "and all that implies" doesn't mean it is wrong, only there is a lot more thing to take into consideration.
well, guilds will rise up and block non guild members from entering certian areas, or 'hog' the special spawn. meaning I won't get an opportunity to get at it.
finally,
What about liability from the parent company. I spent 20 hours(200 hours it desn't mtter) to get the 'rare' item, then you just made them less rare. they would get sued.
That doesn't go into support issues, game bugs, gamer abuses, and many otherthing that need to be taken into account when you involve money.
Re:This will ruin the game. (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, so you mean paying $2K for a system, $40/month for a fast broadband connection, and having 60 hours a week of free time is available to ANYONE regardless of status in the REAL world?
Re:Wasn't real money per se.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Prosecution: Your honor, we are charging Joe User under the DMCA for circumventing a technological measure in our software. We are also further charging he defendent for trafficking in illegal weapons, namely a fully automatic plasma cannon.
Judge: How do you plead?
Joe User: Uh [sweating profusely] not guilty, your honor.
Prosecution: As shown by the evidence in Exhibit A, the defendent circumvented our software in order to profit from his illegal activities. We show that the defendent repeatedly took advantage of what's known as an "exploit" to further his own person.
Judge: Is this true?
Joe User: Well, it's like this your honor, I...
Judge: Yes or No only, please. Remember you are under oath.
Joe User: Uh, yes I suppose, but...
Judge: Thank you. Please continue.
Prosecution: Exhibit B details a listing on the popular auction site eBay for one automatic plasma cannon sold by "joeuser" who, according eBay's records, is the defendent's account.
Judge: Is this your account on eBay?
Joe User: Well, yes.
Judge: And you listed this automatic weapon for sale on eBay?
Joe User: Uh, you see...
Judge: Yes or No!
Joe User: [gulp] Uh, yes, howev...
Judge: Thank you. This court finds the defendent guilty of posession of a restricted weapon and sentences him to 3 years in federal custody. Also, guilty of circumvention of a technological measure as provided for by the DMCA is punishable by 5 years imprisonment. Trafficking in restricted weapons carries with it a mandatory 5 year sentence. And under the PATRIOT act, as this falls under the anti-terrorism mandate, an automatic 20 year additional sentence. This court remands Joe User to 33 years in federal custody with no chance of parole for 25 years.
The author gets the casino analogy wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
in most mmorpgs, games do have some variance built in, but it's hardly as random as a casino. If you're level 8 and the wombat is level 9, you're going to win 90% of the time with small variance.
In the economic model proposed here, the implication is that you would expend say 100 micrograms of gold worth of energy killing the wombat, in order to loot 99 from its corpse. If it always costs 100 ug to kill the wombat and you always get 99ug, that's not an interesting game, it's just "pay to play", and people already pay a monthly fee and probably aren't keen to pay more than current games' rates.
One alternative would be to make the outcomes more variable, which is inconsistent with what most people consider "fun" (at equal levels say making killing the wombat a coin toss would result in very frustrated players -- especially if death has meaningful consequences).
Another alternative would be to make the loot more variable (you expend 100ug of energy to kill a wombat that is worth 99ug with a stdev of say 20ug... a long term losing proposition but an interesting short run one). This would look so much like gambling that it would run off non-gamblers, and would do a poor job of competing against establishments that offer gamblers wagers that can be quickly resolved without all the distraction of wombats and +10 bandyclefs -- and they're called casinos.
Perhaps there's a middle ground, but to me the answer is just to allow free exchange of the digital goods for real money, and have the game provider take a small transaction fee for in-game transfers. Their advantage over eBay would be convenience, the ability to provide a highly liquid market (they have all the information regarding what items are wanted/for sale) and they could bolster reliability by running the whole transaction atomically (transferring the money and promised items simultaneously).
My analysis completely ignores the myriad possible technical glitches that would plague the proposed system (duping, hacking, whatever), and it also ignores the economic implications of them pegging their in-game currency to a real commodity (be it dollars, gold, or whatever). These companies should be running fun games, not central banks, and the author should study the history of fixed exchange rates and the gold standard to see how that can all go terribly wrong and bankrupt anyone underwriting an online game using the proposed mechanisms.
Re:Don't like it, don't play it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that betting had anything to do with the popularity of baseball (unless you are Pete Rose). When I was a kid, going to a double-header with the family was a relatively cheap form of entertainment. You brought a bag of sandwiches, cokes, and peanuts, paid a buck or two per person, and had a nice afternoon.
Now the games are ridiculously expensive and you have to shell out lots of $$$ to buy outrageously overpriced ballpark food. A generation of kids has grown up that probably never experience a ballgame, so they could care less which team wins.
Well, other problems.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This will ruin the game. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This will ruin the game. (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't get it - if the point of playing the game is to escape real life, why are you playing a game modeled after it?
Re:This will ruin the game. (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not on equal footing now. Not everyone has dozens of real world hours to dedicate to the game. That's why I don't play. How is having tons of time different from having tons of money?
Re:This will ruin the game. (Score:2, Insightful)
But unlike in the real world, those that buy their characters would get their asses kicked according to the rules of the game. This would be no different than a high powered character letting a friend have a bunch of turns playing "him".
You seem to forget that in a gaming world, the rules are just as flexible as in the real worlld but are more unlikely to be switched at whim during play. They are codified in computer programming, which means that unlike the real world where creative prosecution, bias, hysteria, and a stupid minority or majority can eat away at rights or privileges.
If the rules change in gameplay to only make it better or fairer for certain characters, people will quit the game and move to a game that doesn't. Compare that to the real world, where there is only one "game" being played; rule changes affect all and we just can't pick up an "leave"--even if you look at this on a country or nation by nation basis, packing and selling all belongings to move is a pain in the ass. In a game, I pull the CD/DVD, delete relevant files, install new files from CD, and reboot.
I understand that you may not like it, but imagine all the fun you'll get cracking the crap out of some rich kid who bought some powered up character but hardly knows how to use her.
Re:Wasn't real money per se.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Because that's fucking stupid. If everyone was using a wallhack and aimbot then why bother? No, really, why bother? "My aimbot is 2 milliseconds faster and 5% twitchier! booyeah b1tches!"
That reduces a game to "press the button to win!" and there's no challenge - no immersion.
--
Anything that can be profitable will be profitable (Score:2, Insightful)
Will MMRPG maintanance turn into suit-and-tie work with as many lawyers and and accountants protecting as technical staff? Yes - this will be like anything else in the world - where concerns over ownership and liability rise to overshadow the actual work being sold.
But would I ever want to play in such a world? No. RPGs I enjoy are a blank slate where everyone starts equal no matter what their real world background. For me, they are a frontier fantasy more than a hack-and-slash fantasy. Once the frontier is settled and the normal inequalities of the real world take over, the whole enjoyment for me in being there is gone.
I'd rather make my money in the real world doing real work. Well, except that my real work is spent on a network doing virtual grunt work for people I'll never meet. I play the
That's quite an interesting idea (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just a blindingly cool idea.