Sony Bans Sale of Virtual Items from Everquest 203
Snaller writes "Everquest is an online roleplaying game where you have to work for long hours online to get your hands on the magical items... unless you buy them. Buy them in game using game currency, or on Ebay where players have been spending real dollars on buying virtual items. After you pay, you meet the seller in game and, hopefully, you get the item you payed for. But no longer, Sony has decreed that selling your virtual items is no longer allowed - try it and you may find yourself banned from the game.
" As a somewhat related side note, obnoxious GMs are roaming the worlds and forcing people to change their nicks to crappy D&Dish names. Really ticked off friends of mine who spent months building up charachters only to have their identities forcibly stripped from them. Of course since EQ constantly crashed for me so I gave up and returned to hoping Diablo 2 runs under wine and is released before my first heart attack. But I find it interesting that virtual property is being regulated: trade restrictions between virtual worlds and the real one.
Life Imitates Stephenson (Score:1)
No standards today. (Score:1)
Re:Sony Had Good Reason (Score:1)
But there is randomness too. equipment can tweak and the same item popped multiple times can have all different stats each time it is popped. You could beat the crap outta big bad mudmonster, loot it, and end up with trash. Or pop a 4/4 ruin like I did once on an equipment run.
This is perfectly reasonable. (Score:1)
Re:Karma (Score:1)
This is a good thing. (Score:3)
Secondly, there is an incredible amount of scamming involved where people send money and never get receive their items or accounts. Buyer beware, yes, but unfortunately these people would flood Verant's support staff with these issues. Now that Verant is officially against it, these calls won't last long.
If Verant cracks down on anyone, it'll be the people controlling spawns for the purpose of mass selling for real money on Ebay. It is harmful for the game, and I think it's within their rights to protect their property from harm.
To *most* EQ users, this was a good thing.
As for people having their names changed, EQ has always had a fairly strict naming policy. If you were stupid and called yourself "Darksoul" or "Feardoom", you deserve what you get. Again, I think this is good for the game and appropriate for the fantasy setting.
Sony Had Good Reason (Score:5)
Dagmar d'Surreal here...
What Sony did was rather apropos, although the way they did it may seem rather implausible to a lot of people. The trading of in-game items for cash was causing a serious problem on some of the servers where once a group of players had established high-level characters, they would simply camp (i.e., hog) the area or monster where a rare item dropped around-the-clock taking each and every one of the rare items and forcing anyone who wanted one to pay them money just to get it. Not only did this spoil the (granted, it's not much of one) illusion of a fantasy-world environment, it was pissing a lot of players off. It was rumored that for a short time on one server, multiple guilds had banded together to create a near-complete embargo of certain areas, where the sale of items took place over an 800 line.
There was also the problem of people selling characters (which involved selling the entire account) on E-Bay, only to wait until a couple of weeks had passed, and then calling customer support, verifying the information which would almost invariably still be associated with the selling player, and taking the account BACK. Since Verant has no way of verifying who owns an account beyond what information was used to create the account, this was causing MASSIVE headaches for their customer support people, because when someone pays a few thousand dollars for a high-level character, they tend to not take "We're sorry there's nothing more we can do" for an answer.
Now when foolish players get screwed, Verant is no longer in a position of having to attempt to sort out the impossible. They can finally say "You knew it was against the rules, you're on your own, chum." This isn't something they can actively go out and police, but at least it eliminates the huge headaches that underhanded "entreprenuers" were causing for them and the people playing the game.
The long and the short of it is that this is not some petty manouever by Sony to keep people from making a profit on the game without Sony getting any.
That's what MajorMUD was invented for. (Score:1)
Re:Karma (Score:1)
Bah Everquest... (Score:2)
--
Re:MUDs (Score:3)
It's like this. The idea of easy mode is that you can't stall or black out or red out, but also you don't have quite the turning ability of full realism. It would appear at first glance that this gives a big advantage to 'real pilots' flying full realism. But! A game like Warbirds is _very_ intensely modelled. Blackouts, redouts, stalls are significant challenges, quite demanding to cope with in heavy combat- you have to maintain 'situational awareness' of not only the enemies but also the state of your own aircraft or you _will_ blow your energy and end up unable to maneuver, or even crash.
To add to that, there are whole maneuvers entirely based on making the other person lose their SA, for instance doing a climbing spiral away from a Focke-Wulf (which has very nasty and violent departure characteristics). If you can get the FW hungry enough to get a shot at you, and you're maintaining the climbing spiral, you can get him to try to pull up, and snap into a really _nasty_ spin and fall, whereupon you swoop down and pounce...
I was never that great at gunnery but I'm a natural stickjock :) my love is the barnstorming, flinging a plane around madly and doing the unexpected. When I flew Air Warrior I had about a 50% chance of evading _anybody_ if I was freaked out enough, because I'd fly totally nuts and force them to black out trying to keep up with me! The whole mad-inverted-immel-to-ten-inches-off-the-ground routine. I'd also teach people how to fly and maneuver ("OK, we are at 10,000 feet. It will take you 20 seconds even to _reach_ the ground. Now turn real tight and keep the nose _way_ below the horizon, and this time you won't stall!" ;) )
There was this one time that I, in my dweebfire^Hspit, went after this cargo plane in Warbirds, figuring it was going to be a piece of cake. Well- wow! It noticed me and began flipping around like mad, sudden fierce maneuvers that I couldn't believe the guy didn't black out, it was all over the place and I, in my overpowered Spitfire, was clinging to the air by sheer force of will, wrestling the beast around about ten feet off the ground and staying on the guy for maybe ten minutes, pinging him repeatedly, basically putting in an amazing performance of virtuoso planehandling- and when he vanished over a hill and I lost him, I had to say over the radio, "Whoever was flying that Junkers- wow, man, good show!"
Cheating comes in many forms, but the point is, it kills the fun of the game. You want to be playing in the same universe as your opponents. It's just as spirit-breaking if you were in EverCr^Hquest and went up against some guy who spent $10,000 on having a character that could stomp anybody- and goes around doing so. Or against some group staking out an item so they can sell it on eBay. *shrug* these things need to be dealt with one way or another...
still playing nethack (Score:2)
That's the *real* reason that linux isn't unix, you know--nethack isn't part of the default install on any distribution I know of . .
I had the amulet in an older version, and without cheating. I slipped and hit the wrong key, wasting a turn instead of wising for a scroll of recall (or whatever it was) and died instead. These days I'm marrieed with kids, and don't have that kind of time any more . . .
Re:Well, there's foolishness all around. (Score:1)
Hmm. What about Joseph of Arimathea? Wasn't he a minor figure in the legend of the grail?
Illusion? (Score:1)
On the other hand, there are many who claim that "reality" is an illusion (maya). Dreams / simulations / The Matrix :)
--
Don't fight it, deal with it. (Score:1)
As others have said, sounds like a weakness in the basic game design which needs more randomness (or something).
Simple - a method is needed for someone to unambigously and irrevokably assign an account to someone else (even if both people are anonymous).
On a larger note, this should be a lesson for would-be game designers - the built-in design of the system (i.e. "natural law") should encourage/enforce the desired play modes, including activities outside the game itself. Trying to apply external rules like these after the fact will probably be an excercise in futility.
--
Re:hehe (Score:1)
beat;
}
Been programming in Pascal a lot? In C, even functions that take no parameters still require the parentheses, thus: beat(); not: beat;
--
Hee hee... (Score:2)
Real as life (Score:1)
Well, you could have an online game where you could be a hacker that goes every day to work and, every now and then, you would trance to a higher plane and do some things that, according to the will of some superior (and whimsy) beings ("moderators" would be a good name), would give you good karma. To spice up the game, there could be some trolls that would try to ruin your day. After that, you would go back to your normal state and see how your virtual economy shares fall free in the market (let's call it Nasdaqh-Ur-Nyse). Then you would put your character to sleep.
Next session, you would repeat.
My point, when a game is too much like real life, you always have real life, that is cheaper.
__
Re:Well, there's foolishness all around. (Score:1)
At any rate though, why would that destroy an illusion? Obviously this is not the Roman Empire where they only had 20 or so names to go around, and women were frequently named according to the order of their birth. There's not a significant difference between Bob and Baughb, except that one looks kind of dumb. Do you really get upset when you interact with real people named Joe or Mike?
Me, I'd like to have a PC with no name at all - it worked for Clint Eastwood.
Re:Sony Had Good Reason (Score:1)
Re:Sony Had Good Reason (Score:1)
i'd say that one answer would be for characters above a particular level (e.g. evil wizards; might be npcs or pcs) to be able to attract or summon hordes of creatures, and for there to be some coming from the borders periodically (who would have guessed that trolls are migratory)
having stuff regularly appear in the same location is a little odd, and doesn't lend itself to the sorts of economic models that we're all used to.
As for treasure of course, there is a good KoDT in which they encounter a dragon who is wealthy, but invested his gold in stocks and bonds. They didn't get any treasure, but did get some good investment tips
Re:Well, there's foolishness all around. (Score:1)
Frankly though, the best solution i can see is peer pressure, not fiats from up on high. Refuse to interact with people who don't have names that you like. Or tell them that you're so sorry that they have to go through life with that name. Sooner or later, if enough people do that you may see some change.
Or you may be considered to be a royal jerk (excuse me, jerque) because you place such a high importance on an illusion which you feel is easily shattered.
ObSimpsons: Mine ears are only open to the pleas of those who speak ye olde English.
Re:Private/public ambiguities (Score:1)
Sony had the opportunity to make some improvement, but didn't. You did. It's yours - earned by the sweat of your brow... er, mouse clicking finger and their unwillingness to do the same.
just because they could magically create gold or whatever is irrelevant - if they did it would devalue and defeat the purpose. sony can be hung by their own petard if they try to avoid this.
The real government still trumps the psuedo government in the game, when you involve them through some real world transaction (e.g. you can't defraud people when selling virtual property and expect to get away with it). I'd let purely game world transactions be subject only to the game rules, and let the buyer beware.
it took a long time to develop a rather trustworthy economy in the real world - if sony wants one they can put some effort into it.
Re:That gets me EVERY time (Score:1)
Really about the best non-ordinary name I can think of both describes its' bearer (for a while) and makes fun of the use of weird names. This would of course be Schmendrick the Magician from Peter Beagle's "The Last Unicorn."
Re:Karma (Score:2)
;)
Well, there's foolishness all around. (Score:3)
Sure, you're a dope if you pay for potion or castle that doesn't exist, but why not let the dopes do what they like? Put a disclaimer regarding the fact that it's all Unreal Estate and you ought to be set.
What especially galls me though is the names. I've played characters in fantasy settings who had normal names. At the moment in the GURPS campaign I'm in, my character is named Mack. Another PC is Nate. Who came up with this stupid rule that all fantasy names have to sound like exotic chemicals and/or have apostrophes in them?
So don't play (Score:1)
So don't play.
"Sony's game won't let me use a name I like!"
So don't play.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
(a) Take gun (b) Point at foot (Score:1)
I reckon the best model would be:
- Client - open source, free
- Server - closed source, free access, plus very high price to buy (like a few thousand) REVENUE STREAM A!
- Game objects
- Let players buy and sell objects
- Let the server operator sell objects REVENUE STREAM B!
- Objects cannot be transferred to other servers
- Add an auction engine inside the game!
- Players auction items for real cash, work out payment between themselves
I haven't patented this business model... it's public domain. Hop to it, all you developers!Hysteria (Score:1)
Verant are far from perfect, but this sort of hysterical exaggeration doesn't help matters at all.
Wouldn't be much fun to play (Score:1)
What's the fun in playing a MUD when the people with the special items are those who a) can afford to buy them, and b) actually want to buy them instead of playing the game for fun?
Re:We have gone too far... (Score:1)
How do you not understand this? People spend real money to play the game. You have to buy it. It's the same thing.
Jordan
Mercantilism is alive and well (Score:2)
Damn straight.
Private/public ambiguities (Score:2)
Let us continue the conjecture that one has and develops property, wealth, reputation, relationships and so forth within these communities.
Now, these communities are privately owned, unambiguously. All property of Sony or AOL/Time/Warner or whoever. Does this make them the equivalents of the governments of these new 'places?'
Does a certain sort of political 'right' accrue based on the fact that you invest time and effort - perhaps years, someday perhaps the better part of a life - despite the proprietary nature of this virtual existence? Does this blur the distinction between private property and public space? How much of that is dependent on the ability to 'translate' between private realms? (ON one hand, we think of our physical world as more constrained, since it is harder to move from one country to another if one is disatisfied with the political structure than it would be to move from one virtual realm to another - however, in fact, in the real world, much of our wealth is *more* liquid - I can sell my possessions, earned by years of labor, and move to another place, but all my labor in one virtual world would be completely untransportable to another...)
That's the most interesting aspect of this sort of development to me - it challenges a lot of the basic political and economic ontology of popular wisdom.
Re:Property rights. (Score:4)
Is the 'property' of EQ ever your property, or does it belong to Sony? Do you actually have any rights to it that they don't explicitly give to you? Is the 'you' that 'owns' those objects the same as the you that is playing the game? If your character dies, you may lose those objects - just what rights do you have in that case?
More questions: what is the legal status of contracts made between two characters on EQ? Are they binding between the players? Are marriages? What civil rights do you have? Can Sony arbitrarily triple or quadruple the costs of a subscription? If you didn't pay, what rights would you have to your virtual property?
Re:Which multi-player RPGs work with Wine? (Score:1)
Property rights. (Score:1)
If I paid Cash for an object, virtual or not, I should have the rights to do with it as I feel please.
5 dollars cash or 5 dollars E-Gold, its my property.
IMHO -IronWolve
Re:hehe (Score:1)
while(horse == dead) {
beat;
}
be better? or, for the more efficient:
while(!horse) {
beat;
}
--
Re:MMORPGs (Score:1)
Re:Sony Had Good Reason (Score:2)
"It's a game. We're not going to play by their rules, but that doesn't mean we're not going to play" -- Vampire, Buffy: the Vampire Slayer.
Missing one subtle point... (Score:2)
Re:This is a good thing. (Score:2)
In the real world, sometimes people change their own names legally to things like Darksoul, or Feardoom, or The Artist, or Columbia University.
In fantasy fiction, sometimes characters are named things like Darksoul, or Feardoom.
It's asinine to go around changing your paying customer's choice of names because they aren't what you would have picked. Hopefully all of those affected will respond by quitting the game.
Re:well...there is always Ultima (Score:2)
Rare items just aren't worth what they were in my day.
I guess you would call that the devaluation of the virtual dollar.
well...there is always Ultima (Score:4)
Karma Bidding War (Score:1)
(New Zealand dollars.
Why there are no modern age muds. (Score:1)
- Realism - in a medieval mud it is believeable that you could have a lengthy sword battle and take a number of hits without dying, provided you are wearing some armor. For a modern age mud to be realistic if someone shoots you once with a gun you're going to be on your knees.. twice, you're dead. So the battles are extremely short and much more deadly, meaning that combat is basically out of the picture in this type of game. Since a majority of MUDs center around combat as the main method of advancement (It is certainly a lot easier than having the administrator code hundreds of quests), this is a big problem.
- 2nd aspect of realism - Computers have to be simulated in some way, but every simulation of 'the net' on MUDs or pencil & paper RPGs is really lame. You can either completely ignore computers in your MUD (not very realistic) or be stuck on the 'post-apocolypse' theme.
- Work Required - ALL mud codebases today are either pure fantasy or "sci-fi with mana" crap. TO make a modern or futuristic mud you'd basically have to code it from scratch... and since no one gets paid for working on muds I don't see this happening any time soon. This of course excludes MUSHes and MOOs, but lets face it, the audience for pure roleplay isn't that big.
I've also played Iconoclast a few times and it was pretty cool, but now it seems the administrators have abandoned it in some sort of "no combat" mode. There are also a couple of other modern age muds out there, but they are all lame or too full of bugs to play.I've tried to create sci-fi MUDs in the past, and it is way too much trouble and too time consuming.
rules vs reality (Score:2)
If they want to stop ownership transfer, the only way they're gonna do it is by coding around it.
Also, I think it's very unfair to frame the article in terms of 'Sony' doing something. Do you REALLY think anyone from the parent corporation has a clue, or gives a shit, about what anyone's user name is?
No. This is the result of some pedantic fuckwad GM enforcing their idea of 'role-play' on the only people who define rp - the PLAYERS.
Heh, same shit, bigger mud. Idiots.
--
blue
Re:(a) Take gun (b) Point at foot (Score:1)
Re:(a) Take gun (b) Point at foot (Score:2)
Big online games (Score:2)
Re:Sony Had Good Reason (Score:1)
I guess what Sony wanted was a succesful game, not a surragate lifestyle.
Re:Sony Had Good Reason (Score:4)
Then EQ's code should have better randomization. Or, more appropriately it sounds like, some CONCEPT of randomization. That's just stupid coding. In the 'real' world, orc's aren't born in the same spot every day with the same rare item. Randomize it, and that problem goes away, WITHOUT breaking valid uses of Virtual Real Estate.
There was also the problem of people selling characters (which involved selling the entire account) on E-Bay, only to wait until a couple of weeks had passed, and then calling customer support, verifying the information which would almost invariably still be associated with the selling player, and taking the account BACK. Since Verant has no way of verifying who owns an account beyond what information was used to create the account, this was causing MASSIVE headaches for their customer support people, because when someone pays a few thousand dollars for a high-level character, they tend to not take "We're sorry there's nothing more we can do" for an answer.
So what you're saying is that because some luser couldn't figure out how to get something in writing about the transfer of the account, it is now up to EQ to solve the problem? Nope. Let the affected user prosecute the seller for fraud using whatever documentation he has. That's what its all about.
Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat (Score:5)
Basically, it was a similar system, "back in the day", (although obviously nowhere near as interactive or as advanced). This paper documents some of the lessons they learned about how people interact in a "virtual environment". It will offer some interesting insight on why EQ people just "don't get it", and I recommend if any of them are reading this... hey, YOU .. go read that article.
For example, there was a situation where a normal player got a "DM only" weapon (a weapon that could kill anyone instantly). How they handled that situation was ingenious, inventive, and consistent with the rules they had laid out for "The reality". The EQ people need to understand these things before they go passing edicts like this.
Re:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*breathe*HAHAHAHAH (Score:1)
Apparently, I forgot to attach the thing that always wins 'em over to the beginning of my message:
"I'll probably be moderated down for this..."
--
grappler
Re:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*breathe*HAHAHAHAH (Score:2)
Of course, when we talk about legal rights, the game participants were not doing anything they "shouldn't have", and the legal system has no place in any of this.
But back to the original thread - I'm not really a bad slashdot poster, honest! But I'm also NOT A KARMA WHORE, and I will speak my mind. I only wish you could have seen the state this article put me into when I read it (hint: fits of laughter) and I really didn't care what others thought. These prices were HIGH - several "items" were going for over $1000! Also, I know people like this at my school, and they are weird.
I stand by my original comments. Moderators, go to hell.
--
grappler
Re:Property rights. (Score:1)
It's not your property. It's your character's property.
---
OOC actions can ruin the virtual reality (Score:2)
I have never played this particular game, but if it's anything like a mud, then there's a darn good reason...
Presumably, the game masters see it as a roleplaying game. Players should interact with one another in character and within the game. Otherwise, the game's virtual reality is violated (e.g. why did someone suddenly walk up to a peasant and hand them a magic cloak for no reason?) and the game's virtual economy goes haywire too (e.g. how is a gold coin worth anything if people transact in a "higher plane of existance" in dollars?).
If you're going to do out-of-character stuff, there's no reason to play a RP game at all, especially if it's a multiuser game where your OOC activities can warp the virtual reality for other players who are trying to stay IC. When I used to play Dartmud [dartmud.com], one of the biggest disappointments was that just a few bad apples, who couldn't seperate fantasy from reality, could totally fuck up the game for dozens of real roleplayers.
You can say, "It's just a game" but if it's just a game, then cheaters have no reason to be get angry when they get kicked off.
---
Which multi-player RPGs work with Wine? (Score:2)
What Verant said (Score:2)
...
The first of these changes concerns the selling of EverQuest Characters andItems outside of the game (i.e. things like Ebay). Here is the text of this change:
"You may not sell or auction any EverQuest characters, items, coin or copyrighted material."
You may ask why we are doing this. There are many reasons, but first andforemost of them is the amount of trouble this is causing our Customer Service group. Simply put there are a lot of people out there who defraud others and we are being put in the middle of it, and we don'thave the time or the resources to assist people with these disputes when they arise. The next reason is amore philosophical one and that is that we believe people should have to earn their items and characters in thegame rather than from buying them outside the game. Obviously the second point can be argued from other perspectives that we do in fact respect, but we wanted you to hear ours.
Full letter is available on EQ Vault [eqvault.com]
Re:Hold on to your reality (Score:1)
Gold isn't the only commodity with these qualities and it isn't the only one that has been used to back paper money.
I disagree that (paper) money has value because the citizenry says it does. If that were true, we should be able to manufacture wealth by simply printing more paper money and asking the citizens to agree that the new money is worth the same as the old money. But that doesn't work. The citizens know that the new money has devalued all money (i.e. is inflationary) because paper money is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as any other commodity.
Since we no longer are on a gold standard (or any other for that matter), I agree the value of money is derived from something more akin to a confidence game. Its value is still subject to supply and demand, but it does have value because people are willing to accept it in exchange for items of real worth. But, the present system is very precarious because we have no guarantees we can exchange our paper money for anything of real worth and, if the confidence should ever evaporate, most of us will be royally screwed.
---
Re:hehe (Score:1)
>
Is a horse of integer type?
Has been posted n+1 times I bet (Score:1)
Yea, why bother with anything but BAT?
"Error: unable to clone
Hey, Rob! (Score:2)
--
Not for them to decide. the REAL problem is... (Score:2)
Why on earth SHOULDN'T people be able to trade items, under whatever terms they want? What's the big deal? WHO CARES!
name changes? (Score:2)
Re:No, they're not doing that (Score:1)
"Ronfar" is an excellent name for nearly any genre
Ronfar is a rather lame name - something one of my D&D characters in 6th grade might have had.
The GMs would get a much better reception with this name-changing business if they just realized one thing: any name becomes a valid fantasy name if you add an apostrophe or two at strategic locations: M'adbi'zatch, Slas'hdot, Nata'lie, B'ritney, etc. etc. This also works for generating Star Trek names.
I'm not familiar enough with EQ to know how stringent the GMs are being about this, but it generally strikes me as a bad idea. These players are paying customers -- if they want to call themselves Salt Shaker or Biilbo, so what? While neither of those are award-winning names, I think they are both preferable to the uninspired "Ronfar" (yawn).
I've been playing pencil & paper RPG for going on 20 years now (yikes!) and have always had a penchant for absurd names. I once had a character - a pompous, headstrong baby dragon in the game "Rifts" - by the name of Therion Quasathorne Vengohopfdengodongo, and I roll-played the HELL out of that character, constantly having him get in arguments with people who refused to address him by his full name.
I guess the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is to hell with pay-for-play RPG. It's only a matter of time before tools and bandwidth get good enough that people can start running their own homebrew realtime persistent-world games -- an evolution of the MUD/MUSH ethic.
Re:Rationale (Score:1)
Free speech issues? (Score:4)
Take a look at the naming policy [sony.com] as posted in the FAQ on Sony's site.
First off, I don't think most would really argue that having a profanity laced name would be considered inappropriate. However, their naming policy goes well beyond that.
Verant's goal is to keep names within the genre of the game. To quote their opening sentence:
Character names in EverQuest should reflect the genre of the game. Original, high-fantasy names are desired. These guidelines apply both to first names and to surnames, and also to the combination of first name and surname. (For example, Luke and Skywalker are acceptable names, but Luke Skywalker is not.)
Should Verant be mercilessly bashed for wanting to keep the game in as much of a roleplaying spirit as they can by establishing their ability to change people's names (to, as was so succintly put, crappy D&D names)?
And another issue is how well these rules are enforced. Clearly a number of GMs look the other way when it comes to names. Perhaps some of them do not agree with the naming policy and choose not to enforce it. But to the ones that do, does that automatically qualify them as "obnoxious"? After all, aren't they just doing their jobs, as stated by the rules?
And finally, where do you draw the line when it comes to deciding which names are appropriate, and which ones are not? Obviously there is a lot of room for interpretation here.
We have gone too far... (Score:1)
It's just a game! Turn off the computer, get out of the chair, and go outside.
Heck, even good 'ole pencil and paper RPGs didn't get this bad.
Mike
Re:We have gone too far... (Score:1)
However, even though I computer game and role play often and fully, this just hit my tolerance level. I tried to think of it in terms of a single player game or a live RPG. "Send us $20 more for the UBERWEAPON!" or a DM saying "For a 5-spot, I'll set you up with the best sword!".
Ugh.
There is a difference in buying a game and selling magic items from the game on E-Bay. The former is entertainment, like buying an album or a video tape. The latter indicates far too much personal investment in a virtual reality for my comfort level.
Maybe I'm just getting too old.
I have seen some pretty bloody wars over MUDS or BBS games (Ahhh, Trade Wars!).
later,
Mike
(long time gamer, long time curmudgeon)
Re:We have gone too far... (Score:2)
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
Make Our Own... (Score:4)
Thad
A couple points (Score:2)
For example, American dollars are the only currency that the Federal government is prepared to prevent the counterfeiting of (except perhaps for postal or food stamps). It's also the only currency you can expect to be paid in for winning a civil suit against the American government or anyone in its jurisdiction.
IMHO, Sony's being a bit too conservative on this point. Why not expand economics in this way?
Because quite frankly, there's nothing in it for them. It'd be a massive PR nightmare if Sony were seen as profiting from such enterprises, so they can't themselves get a cut. And in addition to the dearth of direct benefits for them, there is a massive amount of negative consequences, primarily in support. And keep in mind that they're likely just be covering their butts so as to make themselves unanswerable to angry customers. You'll find most companies in Sony's position hoarding a large measure of discretionary power in reserve so that when the stuff hits the fan, they'll be within their legal rights to do whatever suits the suits.
Re:Sony Had Good Reason (Score:2)
The interesting thing is that in the novel, people behave exactly like the folks described "camping" in the game world. I'm not a gamer, and I'm not sure why I started reading this article, but I find the behavior caused by a non-random distribution of the game goodies to be far more interesting from a social point of view than what would result from random distribution.
BTW, I highly recommend the early books in Farmer's series, but was extremely disappointed in the conclusion -- a melange of cosmic bushwa.
It's bad, yet it's good. (Score:4)
BUT:
1. EQ isn't much of a community. Any Roleplaying community that I would want to be a part of would not have people doing the Out-Of-Character and Out-Of-Game stuff that goes on in EQ.
2. Selling game-items on e-bay is destructive to whatever real role-players still use EQ
3. If you view the company as a game master, then the game-master sets the rules. If you view the company as being system administrators for game servers running a game with rules only about how much damage stuff does, well, you're missing the point. A GM's job is to make the game fun for the players.
BTW, if anyone wants to create a real online community, join us at WorldForge (www.worlforge.org). Our servers, when we get them done, will be way beyond anything you've ever seen commercially.
Re:MMORPGs (Score:3)
This conveniently overlooks the fact that it was a majority of their player base that wanted the e-Bay auctions banned in the first place. It was only a few farmers and campers who protested, the majority of players didn't want to get stuck in a farming/camping/kill-stealing cycle, they just wanted to play the game.
BTW: I was one of those charter members in UO too, before I left in disgust a year later or so, but that is probably neither here nor there.
MMORPGs (Score:3)
I had a look at EQ, I had a look at AC, Shadowboobs (sorry, Shadowbane, what *WAS* I thinking) just doesn't interest me, Star Wars Online could be good (especially if the rumours that Raph Koster and Richard Vogel, who were instrumental in the development of UO, have joined it's development team are true).
One of the big draws of such games is that you can pretty much do what you want within the game mechanics (sorry, the intentionally programmed game mechanics - find a fault in the programming and use it, and you're likely to be banned).
One thing that all these games have in common though is that to have posession of certain items (be they hard to come by, or rare) is a status symbol of sorts - in UO in particular, the "rares" market is worth a LOT of money, both ingame, and out of it.
Richard Garriott (and therefor Origin, at least before he left) supported the sale of accounts and items on E-Bay - not necessarily because they thought it was a good idea (if you sell your account, you can STILL get it back as long as you have the original CD case with the rego number on it, so the system IS open to abuse0, but because he/they realised that to try stifle this would just alienate the players, who happen to be the paying customers.
Sony/Verant seem to be quite intent on alienating their player base with this sort of attitude - Origin, although they can be harsh, at least have the smarts not to play "Big Brother" too often.
I hope for the sake of EQ players, and the game itself (which although it didn't interest me, doesn't mean it's not any good), and the MMORPG market, that Sony/Verant wake up very quickly, or they're going to find themselves with a slowly but surely dwindling player population, despite the pretty picture of the submissively bound, buxom female on the front of the game box....
Back in the day... (Score:4)
Enough background. Federation had to ban the trade of Federation cash (groats) for AOL hours, because people with Fed money were paying people with real money in order to support their habit. Almost the opposite of what's happening here.
There are a handful of text-based games out there that are almost free, but you can pay the administrator to get ahead (experience, game points, etc). Not completely related, but another trade between real and virtual worlds. .sig: Not a text file ********
--
$ more ~/.sig
********
They're doing WHAT!!! (Score:3)
To continue, you know this is the most despicable thing I've heard of on a MUD. The reason why is, "What's a D&D nickname?" D&D is a RPG that steals from multiple sources, and then there are the tons of D&D-like RPGs (computer and others) out there. I'm betting that they don't mean D&D nicknames but "Ye Olde Renaissance Festival Nicknames." I mean would my nickname, Ronfar, be allowed in this new regime? Ronfar comes from the SegaCD RPG Lunar II but who knows if it would be D&D enough. Good God, it's like some kind of virtual orthodoxy test!!!!
Actually, the best thing they can do is rename it to Virtual "the Village" and assign everyone numbers. If someone says, "I am not a number, I am a free man!" they could laugh maniacly at him.
Its official it's now EverAOL...
I've never been on one of these for profit MUCKs, but I've thought about it. Even if I weren't boycotting Sony over their many nefarious deeds, though, I would most certainly boycott them over this forced renaming garbage. I hope Sega cleans their clock when they start Phantasy Star Online provided they don't engage in any of this garbage...
With it's interest in MPAA, RIAA, Playstation and MMRPGs, it seems that Sony really is trying to take Micros~1's crown!
Well... that's the end of my post... mod away!
Rationale (Score:4)
There is also the subsidiary problem of people "farming" creatures who have attractive items to sell for real money.
Re:Sony Had Good Reason (Score:2)
Re:I make a living off of Everquest. (Score:2)
You don't own the Charactor, you don't own the items, and with the UCITA you don't even own the software on the disk.
For 10$ you get the privilige of using a charactor you've been pouring enormous amounts of time into.
And they don't really need a reason to ban you.
So all the time and effort will leave you completely empty handed. You can't even sell your CD!
I quit EQ. I was amazed at how much time I spent on it once I got away.
Later
Erik Z
Re:Well, there's foolishness all around. (Score:2)
fuckyouall, filthybastard, and GenericL33Tkid. The MUD I'm on enforces a name-policy (clearly stated at login, as these things should be.. then you can still choose another mud). Basically our rule is: Would you ever consider giving this name to your kid, or would it make a decent nickname? (a name like Smasher would be allowed)
//rdj
//rdj
Sony - Verent mismanagement (Score:2)
Somewhere out there... (Score:3)
Right now there's a guy who quit his job to become a level 40 dwarf trying to decide if 'Online retailer of enchanted weapons/goods' really looks that bad on a resume.
That gets me EVERY time (Score:2)
I think part of the explanation is the fantasy aspect to the games. It would seem hard to draw up an elaborate fantasy world where everything is different, exciting, and fun to explore. Then you have to believe the main characters are Bob, Fred, and Jim, the same as in RL. I can see where that just doesn't work.
At the same time I have to agree that the names sometimes are terribly annoying. They should come with some sort of explanation how to verbalize these names. Nothing is worse than picking up a game, playing it for hours, then talking about it to your friends only to find you've been pronouncing the main character's name wrong in your head for the past 3 weeks. Ok, yes, that's happened to me personally. The game just never seems the same after that.
Somewhat like after I struggled with Linux for a few months only to be chastised for saying it "the wrong way."
Yay (Score:2)
1. In the article shown above, Sony clearly states it's decision for banning the sales of virtual items. It wasn't done to "Screw the players because we were bored one night"
2. Names changes: Now this is weird, what kind of names were revoked? Certainly the first thing that comes into my mind are obscene names. Why weren't any of these names shared with us during the submission?
3. "Yadda yadda the game crashes under Wine" Uh duh, and? The game's requirements clearly state "Windows 9x" Either get Windows to play Windows games, or petition the company to create a Linux port.
Add the real/virtual we've had for years ... (Score:2)
In this light, this is more like an enforcement to keep the virtual segregated from the real.
The correct link: (Score:2)
Obligatory "Me Too" post. (Score:2)
You know. That's bad, but we're not talking $5 for a sword here. We're talking auctions going for over 4 figures. That goes way beyond "too far". That's up to "You're fscking nuts".
I kind of liked the way they did things with the old BBS games. In order to keep the game balanced and to keep people from getting too serious, things would be reset every so often. Games like Barren Realms Elite were great because every so many months (depending on the server) the entire network was reset to the very beginning. Other games, like Legend of the Red Dragon would reset individual characters when they became powerful enough to defeat the Red Dragon.
OK, so now you think I was getting way off topic. I guess my point is, would you pay $1250 for a Cloak of Fire if you know you're character is going to be reset in 5 more months???
BTW, does anyone know of a place on the interent to play BRE or LORD? All of my local free BBSs closed down out here...
kwsNI
Re:I make a living off of Everquest. (Score:2)
Karma (Score:5)
I'll pay $1/point for some Slashdot karma
segfault@bellatlantic.net [mailto]
Tit for Tat (Score:2)
Of course, governments, like the one in the US, which maintain fiat currency do something very similar. The only intrinsic value US currency has is that it's the only tender the US government will accept for payment of debts such as taxes. And if they want more money, they print more.
IMHO, Sony's being a bit too conservative on this point. Why not expand economics in this way? People want stuff, physical or not, and barter's an inefficient way of obtaining it. I haven't played the game, but I would assume they have some currency, and that the game itself establishes some base value for the currency (I've played muds where the money was implicitly on the "food standard"). What'd be really interesting would be if you could get some currency trading going... Everquest money for more conventional captial. Could be a first step toward the electrification of cash and the (re)privitization of money...
Just some thoughts. :-)
Hold on to your reality (Score:3)
EverQuest cloak == virtual-world item
money paid for EverQuest cloak == real-world item
Ebay auction to set up transaction == virtual-world interaction
Sony's action against Ebay == real-world action
That is, Sony is taking real-world action to prevent virtual-world interactions which lead to real-world exchanges of the "rights" to virtual-world objects modeled on real-world ones. Kind of beautiful, actually. And a very interesting study of the interaction and coexistence of real and cyber spaces.
Re:Hold on to your reality (Score:2)
D'Oh! Mea maxima culpa (Score:2)
I didn't mean to give my own post a +1 bonus. (It was sort of weak, after all.) I was trying to vote to give the original post the bonus. So if you're a moderator, feel free to moderate me down for stupidity, but consider moderating up the original, 'cause it's still funny.
Re:Hold on to your money (Score:2)
Believe it or not, this wasn'tYet Another Example of American Cluelessness.
Re:Private/public ambiguities (Score:3)
At some point, if the communities grow large enough and vibrant enough, Sony might find their ownership evaporating into mist.
Re:Hold on to your reality (Score:4)
In fact, even when the world was on the gold standard, money was virtual. It's time for people to clue in to this: Gold has no intrinsic value! Well, OK, it has some, because it can be used for wires and to make pretty things and so on. But these are far less than the value of gold on the specie exchange. Gold is only worth a lot because we all agree it's worth a lot. Gold is only stable because we all agree it is stable. In the end, gold is just as "virtual" as the current dollar or the EQ token (or whatever).
The key thing to remember is, economics is illusion. Seen in the light, the essentially contra-rational actions of people, corporations, and governments start to make more sense.
MUDs (Score:2)
On every DIKU mud, it's the standard to have in the policy helpfile that you can not trade real goods for virtual goods.
Why?
a) Get a life. Go buy some food (no, not a 'roasted lizard's tongue', something you eat in real life)
b) We all need to game to relax. But it's not very relaxing when you spend a long time getting your social status in the game, only to be superseded by someone who has bought his way into the game.
It may not happen very much, but just the thought of it kills the fun of online games.
Would you like to play a game of Quake against someone using all the cheats? Because as any multi player game gamer (w00+, weird sentence) can tell you, that's what this is: Cheating.
Re:Sony Had Good Reason (Score:2)