Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Role Playing (Games) Businesses

President of MMOG Currency Seller Grilled 111

Posted by Zonk from the cheating-is-cheating dept.
Garthilk writes "When I first saw the interviews with IGE's President on Gamespy and OGaming, I was disappointed. Where were the difficult questions? I got to thinking that an average gamer could try to ask the hard questions. I emailed the folks at IGE and to my surprise, they agreed to conduct an email Q&A. Not soon after sending off my questions I received some replies. Unfortunately, some of the answers were not to questions I sent, so I sent some follow up questions as well. To my even greater surprise, the follow up questions were answered as well. Here is my interview, perhaps it's best to leave the journalism to the professionals."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

President of MMOG Currency Seller Grilled More

President of MMOG Currency Seller Grilled

Comments Filter:

  • Um, try again? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nathan s ( 719490 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:34PM (#11671324) Homepage
    From the article:

    Let us take for example you invite your friend and myself to your house to play Monopoly . I land on park place and buy it. Your friend then lands on Boardwalk. I offer your friend 5 real life dollars to sell Boardwalk to me, and he does. I now have an in game advantage. Does this behavior undermine the spirit of the game?

    PR MOUTHPIECE: I THINK YOU'RE REACHING A BIT WITH THIS ANALOGY. THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR MOG IS A YOUNG PHENOMENON AND ALWAYS EVOLVING, WHICH LEAVES IT OPEN TO A LOT OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION. HOWEVER, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BLATANT CHEATING, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE SECONDARY MARKET IS ABOUT, IN A GAME THAT IN NO WAY MIRRORS AN MOG. WE COULD GO ROUND AND ROUND ON THIS BUT I THINK STEVE HAS STATED HIS THOUGHTS PRETTY CLEARLY.

    Am I the only one who doesn't see a difference between paying $5 for Boardwalk and $5 for that +5 Mega Item of Doom to complete my Doom Set of Items?

    I think that it's cheating, and I also think the PR person knows it. The only way this would be fair is if it was allowed only on servers where players would know going in that it was being done.

    • Re:Um, try again? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by yotto ( 590067 )
      Actually, according to the rules of Monopoly:

      Unimproved properties, railroads and utilities (but not buildings) may be sold to any player as a private transaction for any amount that the owner can get.

      Paying $5 in real money seems legal. Or, if you want to get all pedantic, giving the person $5 and then, in a totally separate transaction, him giving you Park Place for $0 in game money.
    • After reading the interview earlier today, I ended up banging out an article on WarCry [warcry.com] which actually was spurned by that specific response. Bad way to answer a question, I feel, especially when it only serves to disprove your place in the industry as a legitimate market.
    • No, it isn't fair. I don't think anyone has claimed buying something from IGE was. However, it also isn't fair I have to work 40 hours a week while others get to play during those 40 hours. It isn't fair that some people are on dial up while others are on broadband. It isn't fair that someone else has some super high end system while others can barely run the game. Life isn't fair. This applies to virtual worlds just as much as it does reality.

      IGE provides a service to a demand. That's how an open

    • Except for the fact that there's assuredly a plethora of +5 Mega Items of Doom, whereas there (should be) only one Boardwalk per game...

      Yeah, ok, so that's not such a great rebuttal. Though yours was a decent one, I find it amusing the analogies people come up with to try to describe this sort of thing as they see it.

      My take on all of this is that various publishers/developers should just make an official statement of their stance on this up front. Then the consumer can use that as part of their basis

    • SECONDARY MARKET FOR MOG IS A YOUNG PHENOMENON AND ALWAYS EVOLVING, WHICH LEAVES IT OPEN TO A LOT OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION

      What I don't get is how solely being a phenomenon and always evolving makes it not a cut and dry situation, but the monopoly example does.. Does this mean that any dynamic content (well, content stays static, the context changes) can't be judged, but static content (or context) can be??

      Bah, I say.. If thats the case I'm going to make a game where the actual locations of Monopoly prop

    • Actually, there's a better one in there. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Moryath ( 553296 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @05:38PM (#11672660)
      Consider the following:

      Secondly, do you believe developers may hurt their own customer base by targeting them rather than the companies who purvey in the secondary market? Steve: When they try and stifle the secondary market by action against players or companies like IGE, they hurt their game. If I were sitting in a management position at a developer or publisher, I would give my customers what they want. Gamers, by in large, want the benefit of the secondary market. If you don't believe me, check out the size of the market. Millions of gamers are involved. They vote every day with their dollars.
      Yeah, there are how many players playing these games, outnumbering their "clients" by at least a 100 to 1 ratio. And we, the players, hate their "employees" who farm all this shit, because they grief us, get in the way by spawn camping, and are 100% certain to be nothing but bots that are in violation of the unattended character policies in any event.

      Guess what, Steve. I voted with my wallet. I walked away from FFXI because they weren't doing shit about your "employees." And I know more people that have done the same, than haven't. They went to games like WoW where the terms of service are actually enforced, too.

      We, the gamers, do not like your service. A bunch of Skr1pt Kiddiez who crow about twinking their characters with their parents' credit cards like your service, but we don't like those idiots either.

    • Re:Um, try again? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by king-manic ( 409855 )
      Am I the only one who doesn't see a difference between paying $5 for Boardwalk and $5 for that +5 Mega Item of Doom to complete my Doom Set of Items?

      If that happened when you are playing you'd call the guy an asshole and problbly all quit the game after he passed the money. And people do walk away. Notice hwo everyone flocked to WOW.. notice wow have all of the high level items soul bound.
    • It's not cheating, it's metagaming. The same thing goes on in other games too, and it's almost universally frowned upon. Another example is giving Australia in a game of Risk in exchange for an alliance in the next game.

      It's detrimental to the game, but there is little one can do to stop it.
    • In Monopoly you are in direct competition with the other players, in WoW it is usually cooperative. It is closer to a positive sum society so when you get that mega doom axe of strength +5, it generally doesn't mean someone loses out on it. There are other factors to take into account with WoW, such as, why is it for that another player should get to play more than me, but I can't spend money to catch up? There is no need to defend a bad analogy; I think most of us know that this sort of stuff ruins the
    • I agree with you. That also stood out quite abit for me. The "secondary market" will skew things, since there will always be a better money bid above most in game bids.
    • I'd also say that your friends around the Monopoly board would be much more upset about the 'side deals' if they'd each paid £10 to participate and were expecting a level playing field,
    • Actually, while I hate all the bots and tactics people use to make money through IGE, I actually think IGE is right on this. There is a huge difference between buying squares on boardwalk and buying money or items for MMORPG. First off, you can not beat a MMORPG. So by buying some item, it doesn't help you to "win". Also, in MMORPG, generally a big part of it is grouping with others. If you have better items that make you more effective in battle, you are actually helping the party, not harming it. In
      • I don't think you're right. When I play a MMORPG where people can buy money / items via 2nd market, it DOES influence me.

        First off, it damages the economy. Players tend to sell items at the highest price they can sell them for. Without people buying money from e.g. IGE, items are sold at a "realistic" price, i.e. at a price standard (non-cheating) players can afford at the point in the game these items become interesting for them.

        Players who bought their in-game currency from vendors like IGE don't
    • I think the big issue is that competition on most MMO games is transient. There's a pretty good chance the guy with the Doom set will never have an adverse effect on your game. Also, MMO wealth is almost entirely derived from time. It allows one person to transfer time investd to another person. If I spend an hour on the game and buy 9 hours worth of effort, or if I spend 10 hours on the game, the net result is the same.

      I think out of game sales can be OK. If someone doesn't have time to keep up with
    • Am I the only one who doesn't see a difference between paying $5 for Boardwalk and $5 for that +5 Mega Item of Doom to complete my Doom Set of Items?

      I see the difference. However, I would note that if we're playing Monopoly, when I stop playing to go eat/sleep/getalife, you are obliged to stop, too-- you can't just keep running around the board to collect $200. This is not the case in MMORPGs, which can create inequities in PVP play.

      Of course, introducing real-world money into the system brings in all o

    • The real diference is that if you came to my house and cheated at monopoly, I'd throw you out. Perhaps after beating you with a baseball bat I keep especialy for that purpose.
      But if you use a service like this to cheat at an online game the other players can't tell you cheated, they just know your character is richer than their character. The other players can't tell the diference between cheating in this fashion and good old fashioned skill and effort.

      I think that game developers should somehow figure a

  • The end of IGE will be.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MBraynard ( 653724 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:35PM (#11671340) Journal
    When the MMORPG publishers realize that they can sell the virtual items with zero overhead. They can be a broker and have no acquasition costs. Some are doing this now - Second Life?

    OR when they create a game where the only ingame commodity is ingame skill. PLanetside did a good job of leveraging this against time-spent ingame. It balanced beause even if you had no twitch skill, you could still have a roll, like engineer or medic.

    • When the MMORPG publishers realize that they can sell the virtual items with zero overhead. They can be a broker and have no acquasition costs. Some are doing this now - Second Life?

      RV's entire revenue model is based around that principal [roma-victor.com].

    • Not only could the MMORPG publishers make money, but it would almost eliminate many of the hassles that are caused by the third party brokers and the sweatshop gold factories. Certain servers could be designated as "item sale" servers much like PvP servers. There are some details that need to be worked out. More serious players wouldn't want to be on "item sale" servers, and munchkins would still try to buy items regardless of the server they are on. (What is the MMORPG term for munchkin?)
    • That is a terrible idea [slashdot.org], at least for traditional EverClone level grinds. To quote a poster from a previous article:

      ----

      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% of whatever money you gave them

  • I'll take a shot (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:40PM (#11671393) Journal
    Let us take for example you invite your friend and myself to your house to play Monopoly . I land on park place and buy it. Your friend then lands on Boardwalk. I offer your friend 5 real life dollars to sell Boardwalk to me, and he does. I now have an in game advantage. Does this behavior undermine the spirit of the game?

    It seems to me that there's a difference between a Monopoly game, where a contest is carried out from start to finish with a set, small group of people, and an ongoing MMORPG where player-player interactions are discontinuous.

    Buying items is much more disruptive in the former (imagine playing chess and having your opponent announce that he just bought a new rook on Ebay) than in the latter.

    • Remember that in MMOGs, while there are far more people playing the game than in the hypothetical game of Monopoly or chess, there are also far more people attempting to sell items/gold/characters/whatever. Each individual incident has little impact on the game, but they certainly add up.

      • Sure, but even given that -- when you encounter player X in an MM game, he shows up with whatever advantages he has accumulated, whether through gameplay or not. Transfers of wealth aren't as disruptive as if you're playing a discrete game against a specific opponent and he suddenly acquires an advantage outside of the gameplay.
        • But there is also a collective game being played, not by the individual but by the game's population as a whole, and it is disruptive to that collective game when transfers of wealth become partially dependent upon external monetary transactions.

    • You hit on one difference and I'll hit on another. In the most popular MMORPGs PvP (player versus player - like Monopoly) is at most a secondary option to PvE (player versus environment). In the former, people buying fancy items (or gold to buy same) are directly cheating other players who "earned" their way through gameplay. In PvE, however, other players aren't losing out unless the item SELLERS are disrupting the game by monopolizing the places where the most gold and fanciest items can be obtained.
  • They talk with publishers.
    Because publishers give them items, they don't find them in the game.

    Of course you wouldn't like Mythic or Funcom if you knew 100% they gave items out to subcontractors who sell on ebay.

    Duh. I wonder what other companies do this.

  • Kudos for trying, but (Score:4, Funny)

    by bsdbigot ( 186157 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:48PM (#11671490) Journal

    As you said, "perhaps it's best to leave the journalism to the professionals."

    (evil grin) Does anyone else feel that the interview read like Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson?

    To the interviewer: it's a good strategy to butter up your subject and take a gradual incline to the "hard questions." A valiant effort, but you need a little more practice on your incline; the three or so questions that PR answered were a little out there - it was clear from these questions that you had an agenda you were trying to further, and the Business wanted no part of that. I don't fault them at all for not answering. Tact [answers.com] - look it up.

  • I don't see how you can look at a quarter billion going to Pay-Rod and think life is anything but a game. You still see all those emotional reactions (bizarre! wierd! loser!) to MMOG item selling. Well this "loser" is laughing all the way to the bank.
    • I don't see how you can look at a quarter billion going to Pay-Rod and think life is anything but a game.

      Because maybe some of us realise how shitty life is for others less fortunate than us, and that it's definately not a game for them.

      You know, people who don't have Slashdot, or err eletricity, or err water, or a home...

      Well this "loser" is laughing all the way to the bank.

      That doesn't mean he's not being an asshole.

      In a case like this it's really not that hard to understand the difference betwe
      • Because maybe some of us realise how shitty life is for others less fortunate than us, and that it's definately not a game for them.

        Sure it is, they're just on the losing end at the moment. Look at the tsunami. Turns out it will be great for their economy. Jobs, new houses, all this attention! Game.

        • Oh you heard of the Tsunami a couple of months ago which killed just under three hundred thousand people and you are all clued up on the state of the world?

          Talk about being insular... .o0(Bloody yanks, *rolls eyes*.)

          17 million people die of starvation and easily preventible diseases every year.

          3 billion people have to live on on less than 1.50 UKP a day.

          That is not fucking entertainment mate, and it's not a one off event.

          And no, even with all the tourism and development money they are going to get, t
          • Oh you heard of the Tsunami a couple of months ago which killed just under three hundred thousand people and you are all clued up on the state of the world?

            Talk about being insular... .o0(Bloody yanks, *rolls eyes*.)

            17 million people die of starvation and easily preventible diseases every year.

            --Easily preventable disease and starvation. See, in this game, game over happens even though the cheat codes are available (technology technology technology).

            3 billion people have to live on on less than 1.50 UKP
  • If that person is public relations they should probably be fired. When I read that article I was disgusted at the irritation lack of patience communicated by the 'mouthpiece', which truly made me feel as if the company is more of a black market group than a legitimate service. I didn't feel so much this way until they started getting 'angry'.
  • I don't think the monopoly analogy is good, however this one might be a bit better. Who knows maybe not?

    Since it is a hot item in the news, if you look at how athletes have used steroids (performance enhancing drugs) in order to keep up with the demand of fans to perform beyond expectations and be some kind of hero. However most of the press surrounding steroid use is that everyone seems to be using them, ya know if everyone else is doing it why can't I sort of thing. The drug companies say they filled a m
    • Actually, I think the Monopoly analogy is far more apt than the steroid one. If you really have to use a sports analogy, though, then try this:

      A person participates in the qualifying rounds of some sporting competition (qualifiers in an auto race, for example). After qualifying for a spot in the competition, they then decide to sell that spot to the highest bidder, presumably somebody who makes a lot of money and wants to participate in the main event without building up the personal skills and resources

      • After qualifying for a spot in the competition, they then decide to sell that spot

        Almost the same thing happened at the Athens Olympics. Ian Thorpe false started in the Australian qualifying, and was disqualified. Then the guy who won gave his place away to him. I reckon it was wrong, but it doesn't really relate the same way in a MMORPG because its perfectly legal to give items away to others without real money transactions.

  • Interesting connection with OGaming and IGE (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What bothers me more than even the article at OGaming is this connection between the two.

    The whois record for OGAMING.COM reads as follows:

    Quote:
    Registrant:
    OGAMING NETWORK
    152 W. 57th Street
    Carnegie Hall Tower, 25th Fl
    New York, New York 10019
    United States

    Registered through: GoDaddy.com
    Domain Name: OGAMING.COM
    Created on: 31-Jan-00
    Expires on: 31-Jan-09
    Last Updated on: 10-Jan-05

    Administrative Contact:
    Broyer, Jean-Marc dns@ogaming.com
    OGAMING NETWORK
    152 W. 57th Street
    Carnegie Hall Tower, 25th Fl
    New York, New

  • Bad PR (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @05:12PM (#11672400) Homepage
    If the PR group were smart, they would have had their legal department coach Mr. Salyer against saying certain things that had legal ramifications -- rather than inserting obvious PR crud. Steve could have just said "There's serious legal implications to that, and I think I'm going to have to skip that one." This is a common thing to do. Quite sad when they can't even be professional enough to speak with one company voice.

  • Fundamental flaw in reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cutriss ( 262920 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @05:37PM (#11672640) Homepage
    It's all well and good for IGE to market their "services" as people paying for the time spent in earning the items/money involved, but this isn't exactly creating a "new market".

    Sure, you can till your own field and grow your own potatoes, but not many of us have the resources to do that, and so we buy potatoes from the store. Farmers and grocers are providing a service to us.

    What IGE does is akin to squatting on your farm and growing potatoes there. If you're already using the land, they'll just take your potatoes. If you aren't, then you weren't missing the land anyway. And then they proceed to sell back your own potatoes to you, under the premise that "you weren't growing them anyway".

    For some people, sure, they are providing a service. But all they're really doing is effectively holding the in-game services for ransom, which deprives those whom choose not to pay IGE the opportunity to acquire said riches.
    • This is a very interesting way of looking at the problem. I haven't really thought of it in this way before.

      I think for some MMOs what you are presenting holds true, but for some it does not. (I'm not saying that what IGE does is right, just pointing something out)

      The thing about a real life farm, is that they are taking your potatoes from your land. However in some games, I believe that WoW does this, the monster spawns (potatoes) are proportionate to the number of people in the area (on the farm). T

  • Let the market figure it all out (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jgardn ( 539054 ) <jgardn@alumni.washington.edu> on Monday February 14, 2005 @06:15PM (#11672979) Homepage Journal
    I have a suggestion, which it seems people are already following. Why don't we just let the market decide the way things should work?

    I think what will happen is the publishers will eventually grant real legal rights to the objects and avatars in that world. The players seem to want this, and seem to understand that this is fair.

    If I were into this sort of thing, I would begin forming enterprises that facilitate this. For example, if your avatar owns a lot of expensive things, how about you get an insurance policy that will pay our real dollars in the event the items are lost in certain situations? What about in-game escrow services - avatars who belong to particular groups who have built up a reputation for being responsible in holding items and in-game cash? How about time-share contracts, where items are loaned but only for certain times of the day? What about item rental?

    • Re:Let the market figure it all out (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DingerX ( 847589 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @06:49PM (#11673252) Journal
      Several reasons why this isn't a good idea: A) if you grant legal property rights to junk in games, then you subject your company, which maintains the servers, to all kinds of legal nonsense. Nerf a weapon? someone files a lawsuit. Add a new weapon? Someone files a lawsuit because their weapon was de facto nerfed. Basically, you resign all control over the game balance, and you lose customers.

      B) If you ignore that, companies have the ability to print money and sell it. And if they engage in it directly (a la "there"), nobody's going to be interested. Playing a game that can be "bought" is simply no fun. It might work for certain "religions", but the rest of us just don't like the idea.

      So tacit collaboration helps everybody. No need to advertise it, but you cut a deal with a company like IGE, and everybody benefits.

      Of course, the real problem would be a game design that rewards tedious menial labour. The game itself should be rewarding, not the prestige gained from doing crap simpler than flipping burgers.

      Now, if you're running a virtual currency, and you're looking to keep the power in the hands of producers (and not hoarders), may I suggest a solution from the Federal Prison system?
      Establish two currencies: 20 dollar bills and cigarettes are traiditional, but you can use Quatloons and Augustan Denarii if you prefer. At regular intervals, change the exchange rates from 2:1 to 1:2, and back: and make sure that no vendor takes both currencies.

      If you want to have some BS magic devices, have their efficacy follow similar cycles.
      • Playing a game that can be "bought" is simply no fun.

        Of course, playing a game that you can't buy isn't any fun, either. We occasionally see console video games that stick to a coin-operated video game model. Why should anyone have to pay for a game with limited chances to play? If you own the thing, why can't you put another virtual quarter in it?

        What you're looking for, as we all are, is balance. If being able to buy a better sword is one of many ways to advance in the game, great! If the whole po
    • I'm a little wary of a world where onbe day my gold card benefits include MMORPG character insurance, thats bringing gaming and RL a little too close together for my liking.

      (thats part of the reason why I don't really feel comfortable with secondary market activities).

  • The final unanswered question... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 14, 2005 @06:32PM (#11673117)
    Regarding the question about IGE trying to cut a deal with the game developers/publishers...

    IGE has indeed approached one company that I know about, and has probably approached others. From what I hear IGE is always eager to cut some kind of a deal. The theory I've heard discussed is that they are in search of legitimacy from the publishers of MMOG's. Any legitimacy they can obtain from one group could be used to leverage more acceptance from others.

    I suspect that the "service" that IGE and other brokers provide is actually a net boon to the game companies since it provides more total value to their game for their user population. That is, the game company gets more revenue by allowing a bit of "illegal" trading ==> thereby providing high value for some players and a little bit lower value for the rest. As long as it is officially illegal the game company reserves the right to crack down should they see the practice actually cut into their profits (more unhappy customers than happy ones instead of the other way around).
  • http://www.okratas.com/modules.php?op=modload&name =News&file=article&sid=58

  • Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @05:09AM (#11675869)
    The Monopoly analogy is spot on, AFAICS. MMORPGs provide enough factors that addicted gamers can come up with arguments to convince themselves that what they're doing isn't like buying Boardwalk.

    To me it seems like Magic:The Gathering. I was addicted to that for a long time and spent far too much money on cards (can't have a Blue/Red Direct Damage/Jitsu deck without Jokalhaups, Iceberg and a bunch of other rares). You can avoid the problems, but in an open competition the guy with the most expensive deck wins. I fudged the issue for ages, justifying all the money I spent on booster packs and cards.

    In a small group of friends, you can play controlled tournaments, with limits on cards or random cards so money doesn't come into it. But go out into the wider world and you can't do that any more. Eventually I realised that I was only doing it because I was addicted, and gave all my cards away (and yes, I do regret giving away my multiple tournament winning, very expensive main deck for free *now*, but at the time it made sense).

    Doesn't it cheapen the game and reduce the impact of skill if any PvP or vaguely competitive aspect of the game can be decided by the fact that one player can afford to buy a sword of death+10?

    Don't get me started on the fact that people play games that AFK macros can play for them, and so boring that they'd pay to have someone else play for them.

    • Doesn't it cheapen the game and reduce the impact of skill if any PvP or vaguely competitive aspect of the game can be decided by the fact that one player can afford to buy a sword of death+10?

      I think it depends on the currency being used to purchase tho sword of death+10. What do you value more, time or dollars?

      Let's say it would take you 30 hours of playtime to attain the amount of virtual currency necessary to purchase said sword. Let's also say that you could exchange $30 of real life currency for

      • But it isn't much of a game if the 30 hours to get a sword is neither fun nor requires any skill, is it?
        • I couldn't agree more. But there are MMOs like this. Camping for items in Everquest was a massive timesink. I think that for the most part, as long as players are enjoying themselves they won't feel the need to purchase in game items or currency with real world cash. There are always going to be exceptions of course. There are people whose goal is to get to the end, and they don't take the time to enjoy the journey.

          It's when the tedium sets in that people look for alternative means to acquire these it
  • I was briefly elated at this headline, until I realized that it wasn't preceded by

    "President of MMOG Currency Seller Slaughtered"
    and
    "President of MMOG Currency Seller Butchered"

    So I suppose we're not going to be reading
    "President of MMOG Currency Seller Fed to Swine at Remote Pig Farm"

    Anytime soon. Still, hope lives on.

  • Why not a market in services? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tillerman35 ( 763054 ) on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @11:13AM (#11677953)
    Hopefully this isn't thread-jacking. At worst steering the thread a little, anyway.

    But why not a secondary market in services? Stop selling stuff because you don't own the stuff anyway (if you believe the publishers). On the other hand, nobody owns your time. There's no reason you, either as an individual or agent of a corporate entity, can't use your time to help out another player for pay. You've paid your subscription, you're following the EULA, no cheating is involved, nothing is being done that couldn't be done for free without breaking any terms of service.

    Some examples:

    • Corpse Retrieval- lost your soul/corpse/shard/whatever in a skeery dungeon right next to the uberunderlord? We'll dispatch a Level 99 Brawnmeister to escort you safely to it and back to the newbie yard.
    • Tour Guide- Want to see all the cool sights in the game? We'll provide you with safe escort.
    • Quest help - Last quest item near a mob that's just to uber for you? We'll get you help.
    • Group help - Tired of fellow players who jack your groups, can't play their class, act like idiots, get your character killed? Need just one more character to round out your group? We'll send out 2,3, as many characters as needed to get the job done. You get the exp, you get the loot, we fight for you (to the "death," if that's what it takes to get your quest done and keep your character safe)
    • Entertainment - Are you lonely? Need someone to "keep you company" in the Owerly Inn? We'll send a member of the race/gender/alignment of your choice to a location where you can "converse" in private.
    • Match Making - Need to hook up with someone who has similar likes and dislikes both in-game and RL? Take our Xanthian Compatibility Survey and we'll find the right troll for you!
    All the controversy goes away because the secondary market company becomes a broker for services, not items. No more question of who owns in-game geld/items/whatever. It's no different than paying someone to help you mow the lawn.

    Note: My exposure to MMORPG-ing is limited to EverQuest 2; do your own mental translation to the MOG of your choice.

  • I think one of the most interesting examples of this "grey market" competition happened several years ago in EverQuest. An exploit was discovered that generated huge amounts of platinum (I think it was a smithing combine, but its been a while.) What happened was two things. First, the real-world price of platinum plummeted. Second, some of the platinum was "laundered" on each server by buying the top items for sale in the bazaar. It had a noticeable effect on the EQ economy. As far as I know, IGE consolid

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close