Virtual Farming Firsthand 89
This past weekend we discussed virtual sweatshops, and the legal issues they bring up. Today Terra Nova has a discussion in which Julian Dibbell, noted VW economics researcher, asks do such things really exist? Firsthand experiences would seem to indicate they do, with extensive chat logs (via Broken Toys) and the experiences of players documenting farming behavior.
Almost as prevalent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Almost as prevalent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Almost as prevalent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Almost as prevalent (Score:2)
Re:Almost as prevalent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Almost as prevalent (Score:2)
Even more conspiracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Even more conspiracy (Score:2)
Re:Even more conspiracy (Score:1)
Re:Even more conspiracy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Even more conspiracy (Score:2)
Re:Even more conspiracy (Score:2)
Re:Even more conspiracy (Score:1)
So what if it's entrapment? Not as if that's illegal!
Many people believe a myth that entrapment is illegal, but that's just wrong. There is a legal defense of "entrapment" that applies only to police officers, and which is much more specific and limited than what "entrapment" means in the English language.
Re:Even more conspiracy (Score:2)
Heard about this for awhile... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Heard about this for awhile... (Score:3, Insightful)
But, on the other hand I think that if someone wants to provide a service, they should be able to get paid for it. However, as I don't find fault with people working hard and making real money off of that work... I have a problem with the cheaters who buy all kinds of stuff without having to work for it. If you d
virtual economy... (Score:4, Insightful)
The "real" economy went virtual the day we didn't have a value in gold to back the value of ever dollar.
There's no difference between the economies of a MMORPG or a country. You pay a service to play MMORPG, you pay a tax to live in country. While in that country / MMORPG, you have opportunities to earn local currencies. Why shouldn't you be allowed to convert them? (country lock-in?)
It bugs me that people (not necessarily parent poster) and developers seem to think users have no rights to this. Developers just don't want other people making money off their game, which is silly if you refer to the tax analogy above. (more farmers, the more monthly income) Players seem to think that anything that can be done for fun shouldn't be desecrated by the concept of economy. Only they don't know when to say when, because they're perfectly happy to take part in economies to sell an item here or there but upset when someone makes this the point of the game for themself.
Who cares? Ok... now if there are sweat shops, honestly, something needs to be done. Otherwise I say let them farm if they want.
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
That's why economically rational game companies must try to prevent gil-farming (to use the FFXI-specific term). They're selling an experience, and revealing that there's a shortcut to the endpoint removes the fun, and will cost customers.
Imagine how profitable a casino would be if they just gave you a number at the door and just instantly gave you 94.3%
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1, Interesting)
In the virtual economy, usually goods and currency are introduced into the economy through a chance of dropping every time a monster is killed. The supply of items and currency is determined by how many monsters are being killed. Very valuable items are dropped from monsters that may take twelve hours or more to reappear after they are killed. Currency is much easier to obtain
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
That wouldn't be "easy", as it would require passing a Constitutional Amendment to revoke the existing Fifth Amendment [usconstitution.net]. So USA citizens enjoy that right exactly as strongly as the do any other right.
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1)
After thinking about this I'm not sure it applies. Your argument is that declaring foreign currency illegal is effectively confiscating property from citizens. But this happens every time something is declared illegal, people who have been legally dealing in it now have a warehouse of worthless, illegal goods.
Besides, the constitution can be changed. You're right, perhaps not "easily", but it is within the power of
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
Most all constitutions have a line like that. "Life, Liberty, Property" is almost a standard boilerplate. The UN also declares them as human rights.
But this happens every time something is declared illegal,
That happens pretty rarely (except with synthetic drugs), and there are mitigating factors: The ban is always pre-announced, so existing owners have a chance to sell it out of the country first. And there is often a "grandfather clause", whe
Re:virtual economy... (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, you are not entitled to ANYTHING. They can make those rules for whatever reason they want, but as long as you pay them and are under that contract, you play by their rules or you don't play at all. There really is no point in debating this.
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Liability.
If they endorse sales of items and currency, they agree that said items and currency have real world value. Since they agree to this value, then they could be held liable for losses incurred because of server issues, balancing, database rollbacks, etc.
Imagine Johnny's $100 Mace o' Doom gets nerfed in a patch and is only worth $10 because of it. He could make a claim that he should be compensated for his loss.
Imagine a database roll-back on 500,000 characters.....
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2, Interesting)
The liability issues you mention probably come down t
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
No, no they don't. If Blizzard goes out of business and WoW goes offline, then I don't care if I have 10 gold or 10 billion.
The evidence is clear on this: ask players if he prefered to keep the items he has or loose them with no compensation. If only one of them opts to keep, the goods are actually valuable. But this is unecessary since ebay auction not only proove that people attach value
Wrong. That evid
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
No, it turns out my mistake was to take your words at face value.
Saying that the in game items are not valueable to the player (with the properties they possed when he first aquired them) is absurd.
Correct, it is truely absurd. But if you know that, then why did you claim otherwise:
The virtual goods have value attached to them regardless of the game companies recognizing them.
The game items only possess properties because the
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Gold has as much inert value as giant stone wheels.
The value of gold can (and does) fluctuate in regards to other goods, as a minute's worth of research would show.
Money is the concept to use a scarce good as a medium of exchange, nothing more, nothing less.
Historically, gold has been useful as a currency, due to its rarity, but there are some problems with gold: The supply of gold tends t
Re:virtual economy... (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to pay attention to your history lessons.
The value of gold has fluctuated historically, over the long term. Different societies valued it differently. One often-cited example is gold and silver in the east and west: During the 1700s, the Far East wanted silver, while Europe wanted gold -- the result was that silver flowed out of Europe and gold flowed out of east Asia.
Also, you need to pay more attention to your economics.
Gold doesn't buy the same amount of goods now that it does 500 years ago because the value of other goods fluctuate.
If you are advocating gold for economic stability, it doesn't allow the same 'tricks' that fiat money does, and I feel that weakens the economy.
If you are advocating gold for a measure of value after the US crashes and burns, taking the rest of the world with it, I humbly suggest that bullets, books and medicines may be more valuable.
Of course, I could be wrong. Greenspan disagrees with me as well. :)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1, Insightful)
I think the word you were looking for was inherent.
your comments are otherwise thought provoking
And I love iRate radio.
Have a nice day
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2, Insightful)
What is it with gold nuts? Backing currency with gold means that whatever gold is worth, so is the piece of paper in your hand. You could back it with sheep if you wanted, or triangular rubber pieces 10,000 miles to a side, or cling-wrap. It's all the same. Fiat money (which most currencies are these days) is implicitly backed by the future taxation power of the government. If the government's taxation power goes down (civil unrest is a really good way to do this, government debauchery is another) the
Re:virtual economy... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Establishing an equivalency between real world currency and gold/Archmages Robes of the Eagle/Swords of P0wning invites real world courts and governments to see gold/robes/swords as tangible property. This would lead to a couple of things: taxes, first of all. If every time Onyxia gets capped $150 of virtual goods spawns in Irvine California, sooner or later the CA IRS is going to wonder "Say, where are our income taxes from independent contractor Onyxia?" How long do you think any taxman is going to let a multi-million a year revenue stream go uncounted? Second, if I *own* my little 30 kb that describes the state of my WoW character and Blizzard decides to nerf my Sword of P0wning I could theoretically sue them for taking away my property interest in the Sword. Currently, their EULA protects them (they say its ALL their IP), but if they allow the IP to be bought and sold they can no more expropriate the goodness of my sword than my ISP can arbitrarily delete content off my professional website.
2. More farmers might mean more monthly income, but the developers will never see a penny of it. It just means there is more gold/items floating in the game than they planned for, possibly bursting their sinks, and thats a problem. For one, it will impoverish non-farming players, because as inflation increases the price of finished goods/endgame content the price of "vendor trash", coin, and static quest rewards will not increase, seeing a drop in the virtual "real wealth" of the casual players -- who aren't going to pay $15 a month just to be lvl 40 Serfs.
3. Some players are morally offended by the idea that their "fun" is being corrupted, and regardless of whether you think they're hypocrites, off balance, or whatever, their $15 a month is as green as everyone else's and they will gladly take it elsewhere. Most developers think that this segment of their playerbase buys more months of service than the "farming community", and they're likely correct.
4. Buying upper-level content means content gets exhausted faster, which could increase the churn rate of the same very interested customers the developers are most happy to keep in the system (both because they typically play games for a long time and because they provide structure to the playerbase via guilds/etc, increasing newbie retention and generating "content" for other players via social interaction, guild rivalries, etc).
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
While an interesting discussion, I can't think of any current class of "intellectual property" that your character would fall under. (Remember, there is no such thing as "intellectual property", it's a grouping term, and discussion like this is exactly why it is important to remember this!)
It clearly isn't trademarkable or patentable.
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
To extend the taxes argument--it's clear that if you can "win" or "lose" the game and get money for it, it's gambling. That's not legal everywhere, and where it is, the government takes their cut.
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
Wrong. Gambling is based mainly on random probability, and is often illegal (unless the government is running it). Games of skill are separate, which is why gambling in poker is legal in many, many more places than blackjack- the skill component is so much higher.
Furthermore, you're wrong because in many USA states, gambling of all kinds isn't illegal at all. For example, in New York
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1)
You say I'm wrong, yet you go on to support everything I say. You agree that gambling isn't legal everywhere, and you agree that gambling includes games where skill and chance are mixed.
Why are you arguing again?
Re:virtual economy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah but the funny part is this segment of their playerbase is often a part of guilds/clans who screw the e
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:3, Insightful)
No the "real" economy went virtual when we went away from direct barter. Gold, like paper money, is an arbitrary form of wealth measurement, it has no inherent value. Its use as a means of virtualizing wealth relies solely on its ability to be accepted, rare, and hard to counterfeit; same as paper money.
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2, Interesting)
And there is nothing abitrary about gold (unlike paper money). The following properties make gold uniquely suitable as money:
- durability (it doesn't spoil, rust, break or tear, unlike paper )
- low weight (in relation to the other goods on the market, there is relativly few gold to go around, unlike paper)
- divisibility (gold does not have to be treated as a unit (unlike cars ie.), many small pieces are almost exaclty as
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1)
- durability (it doesn't spoil, rust, break or tear, unlike paper )
- low weight (in relation to the other goods on the market, there is relativly few gold to go around, unlike paper)
- divisibility (gold does not have to be treated as a unit (unlike cars ie.), many small pieces are almost exaclty as useful as one larger piece, unlike paper)
- impossible to counterfeit ( as you noted
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
No it is a virtual economy. Direct barter means I give you a cow for a bushel of wheat. However, that system is complicated if you don't want a cow. What virtual economies do is allow indirect trade, and improved valuation. I don't have to trade you a cow, I can trade that cow to somebody else for "economic units" which you would be willing to accept in exchange for the goods you sell. The "economic unit" could be anythi
Re:virtual economy... (Score:1)
Re:virtual economy... (Score:2)
Re:Heard about this for awhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
the buyers, the people who don't want to *play* the game in the first place to get those items should be banned if anyone.
though, if the devs have come up with a game that has an indeed so boring system for gaining wealth that you'll rather work at mcdonalds for few hours than play it then it really has gone wrong right there.
the game worlds should be designed so that while designing they would keep it in their mind that the real world exists and they *Can't* isolate the gameworld from it.
Re:Heard about this for awhile... (Score:2)
I'm not saying its a wise investment at any price, since you shouldn't
Re:Heard about this for awhile... (Score:2)
Why?
Re:Heard about this for awhile... (Score:2)
I don't see any justification for that. True, many MMORPG developers state that exact line, but repetition doesn't create truth.
I suspect that many game designers have a simulationist tendency- they like to create world that are "realistic", or at least self-consistent. It's more satisfying to watch good behavior emerge from a simple set of ground rules than to script in every little detail yourself. (Less effort, too)
However, looking at existing top
Re:Heard about this for awhile... (Score:2)
Re:Heard about this for awhile... (Score:2)
No, they do it to win fights. That was the objective of the first D&D game ever played (run by Gary Gygax with variant CHAINMAIL rules). That goal has remained close to the core of most (popular) RPGs ever since.
No one ever played old-fashioned table top D&D just to level up or accumulate gold and items.
No one ever played old-fashioned tabletop D&D to play the stock market or trade renewable
Re:Heard about this for awhile... (Score:2)
Re:Heard about this for awhile... (Score:2)
A quick check of the 40 top selling computer RPGs of all times shows that 100% of them focus the gameplay on battle. So... what planet did you say you were living on, again?
Re:Heard about this for awhile... (Score:2)
Re:Heard about this for awhile... (Score:2)
So just because [insert random pop star] sells...
Virtual Farming? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Virtual Farming? (Score:1)
Go Mods! (Score:1)
Farming? (Score:1)
Ah, SimFarm. It was an interesting game.
Re:Farming? (Score:2)
Re:Farming? (Score:1)
Re:Farming? (Score:1)
What the companies need to do (Score:1)
That will stop this nonsense.
-jeff (getting ready for the privacy freaks to whine)
Re:What the companies need to do (Score:2)
I'm sure E-bay will be quick to give away credit card numbers of their customers.
headline made me think of.... (Score:2)
A Modest Proposal (Score:1)
Maybe then someone will design a fun MMO game that isn't a ripoff of the 30 year old Dungeons-and-Dragons model of accumulating crap to buy more crap, paying $50 plus $15 a month to pretend to be a blacksmith