{Return to the Xfire Debate Club Main Page}
Xfire Debate Club 7th Meeting: Game Economies
August 21st, 2007 (Main Floor Transcript)
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Welcome to the 7th meeting of the Xfire Debate Club!
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: We are very excited to have you all here today!
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Remember, Xfire users should be debating the topics in the Open Debate Room - The Open Debate Room is not for Spam. It will be moderated strictly. User representing themselves intelligently will be invited into the Xfire Debate Club Clan: The Two Handed Sword. Invites will be sent out within a week after the Debate. Invites will be scarce.
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Basic chatting should go in Unofficial Chatter
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Q&A in the last 15 minutes will go in the Question Room (That's when we'll be pulling questions, so you can wait)
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Prizes will be raffled at the end of the debate, so be sure to catch it all!
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Please join me in welcoming our special guests to Xfire's
Virtual Gold & Real Money: The Game Economies Debate! (woot in unofficial chat!)
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: We are especially happy to have with us today:
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Joe Blancato (Moderator), writer and editor, The Escapist
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Benjamin Duranske – Attorney, author, co-chair of ABA Virtual Worlds committee
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Casey Monroe - Content Manager at ZAM Networks
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Dan Kelly – CEO of Sparter, a gamer-to-gamer digital goods trading network
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Dmitri Williams – Researcher, Associate Processor at USC's Annenberg School of Communications and writer, Terranova
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Rory Starks- Lead artist, Arden: The World of William Shakespeare
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Robin Rosales - Public Relations Manager, NHN, ijji - South Korea’s largest internet portal
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Jim Rossignol from The Escapist is unable to make it today, but sends his regrets and wishes every the best.
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: First off, lets welcome our moderator, Joe Blancato!
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox:
Joe is an Associate Editor at The Escapist magazine, and has written extensively on online gaming and virtual economies for years at The Escapist, Warcry.com, and waterthread.org.
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Alright Joe, let the debate begin!
Joe: Cool, will do.
Joe: Before we get started, could you guys introduce yourself and give your background as it applies to virtual property/item exchange?
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Benjamin Duranske - lawyer now, IP stuff. Write virtuallyblind.com. Made about a grand a month buying and selling UO acounts in law school. ;)
dkelly1: Dan Kelly - been on the publishing side with Disney and THQ before starting Sparter.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: I do research on games, usually with surveys and experiments. I have some data on RMT patterns and opinions. I'm also a longtime gamer, with characters back on UO and an active raider in WoW.
[SWI] Rory Starks: Rory Starks - In addition to being the Lead Artist for Arden, I also assist in world building and scripting for the game. I've just finished my Masters in Immersive Mediated Environments at IU.
[ZAM] Malgayne: My name's Casey, I work for ZAM as a Content and Community Manager, specifically doing a lot of community work on Wowhead.com. When the site was sold, I was the one who answered all of the angry emails. :)
[NHN] Robin John Rosales: Robin with NHN USA - Ive handled various roles from biz dev to advertising, currently handiling PR at NHN - USA - ijji.com. We offer free games with revenue derived from microtranactions of in-game items.
Joe: And I'm Joe. I've written quite a bit about virtual property and real-money trade across several websites, and like Ben, I've made some cash on the side playing UO and EQ.
Joe: Question: In order to frame the debate, what is "virtual property," to you, in a sentence?
[ZAM] Malgayne: Hehe--we could probably wind up arguing that one for the entire alotted time
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Bits in a database that are represented in graphic form in a virtual space.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: I think it depends entirely on what you agree to when you sign the EULA. You can own everything you create, earn, etc. or nothing.
[SWI] Rory Starks: I'd say that "virtual property" -- in the case of virtual worlds -- is some amount of data that has the potential to contain ownership by players or world builders.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Dmitri, I would add that the bits have to be in some way transferable, otherwise it's impossible to claim "ownership" of them
[ZAM] Malgayne: But otherwise it's a good definition, I think
dkelly1: I don't like the word virtual because it implies not real. digital, yes. property is a slippery slope..
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Agreed there, dkelly1. It's digital property. Just like a graphic on a web page.
dkelly1: but there are issues with using the word property
[NHN] Robin John Rosales: I agree with Ben, it varies from game to game, company to company, but perhaps best defined in the EULA
Joe: Question: In that vein, you kill a monster, and he drops some gold and a few items. Who owns that loot? You or the developer?
[ZAM] Malgayne: I would say you own the "loot" about as much as you own the software
[SWI] Rory Starks: Yes, it can be difficult to define the term for all games/worlds
[ZAM] Malgayne: It's licensed to you
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Depends on the title and what you agreed to. The devil's int he details (that no one reads)
[ZAM] Malgayne: I own a copy of WoW, but I don't "own" the code
[SWI] Rory Starks: Right, this type of ownership is best defined in some type of agreement between the user and developer
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: I'd go to the TOS/EULA. You really don't own jack in most games.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: You don't even own the copy of WoW.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: You just own a license right to it.
dkelly1: The issue of property rights is a red herring. The issue is why we restrict gamers from trading when trade is good.
[ZAM] Malgayne: That's true, I meant to put "own" in quotes
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: *grins* Exactly.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: I can imagine games and spaces where the ownership issue is greyer. Second Life is all over the map on this one.
[SWI] Rory Starks: Very true
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: That's right, Dimitri - though they specifically do allow ownership of user created IP in SL.
[ZAM] Malgayne: I'd be interested to see what that license agreement looks like; it must be MUCH longer than the average game.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: IANAL, but I thought that there is some dispute over what they do and don't own in two current pending cases.
dkelly1: Unless a developer specifically assigns property rights to the gamer, then we must protect the developer's interest in the property. To do otherwise would destroy the economic model of content creation, which is bad for anyone who loves games.
[ZAM] Malgayne: I wouldn't argue with that at all
Joe: Question: What about the strength of the EULA? Ben, as an attorney, where does the law side on the legality of EULAs in a situation like this, where a player claims ownership of what his character has?
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Dimitri - One current case has a guy who was banned for using an exploit trying to claim he owned the land and they couldn't take it. The other is a guy suing another SL user who allegedly ripped off his IP. No case has clarified how the TOS/EULA will apply here yet, but conventional wisdom is that you get to keep IP (e.g. your creations, copyrighted stuff, etc) but you just rent the "land" from Linden Lab.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: It depends, Joe. SL's TOS was recently declared invalid for being unconscionable in one court (that doesn't mean other courts won't find otherwise).
[USC] Dmitri Williams: So for them it's situational.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: But generally, two people can contract to whatever they want to.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: And a court will enforce it.
dkelly1: Was the whole TOS declared invalid or just the arbitration clause?
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: The issue was the arbitration clause, but it was declared invalid due to a number of "grabby" provisions.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: All of which collectively unbalanced the TOS against the user, unconscionably.
[ZAM] Malgayne: The whole TOS, then?
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: The court was only ruling on the arb clause though.
Joe: Question: Do you guys see a parallel between the user-driven web model and MMOGs? Who owns a comment on a website vs. a sword in WoW? For example, a Digg poster drives other users to Digg, but he's using Digg's technology to do so. A crafter in WoW makes items, but he's using Blizzard's tech. Do your opinions of ownership change between each scenario?
[ZAM] Malgayne: I think that a lot of these are very touchy situations. I imagine most forums have a TOS that specifies that comments on their forums are the property of the forum admins
[ZAM] Malgayne: Just like the ToS of most MMOs specifies that the virtual propery belongs to them
[ZAM] Malgayne: But if that ToS didn't exist, would the comments I posted on the forum belong exclusively to me?
[SWI] Rory Starks: I see a parallel with regard to the developer having certain ideas about what is and what isn't allowed in their service. For example, a forum moderator censoring a user's comment due to a breach in the site's terms of service
[ZAM] Malgayne: I don't know if that's necessarily clear
[USC] Dmitri Williams: We want systems that protect the incentives of developers to create content, but also systems that both protect the ideas of users and their rights as members of a larger, democratic society.
dkelly1: Unless rights of ownership are specifically assigned, we must assume the gamer does not own, in the traditional sense, the item
Joe: So if a commenter on your blog were to try to sell a comment he wrote in regard to something you posted, do you think he has the right to sell that comment elsewhere?
[ZAM] Malgayne: There isn't really a precedent that tells us who the IP belongs to in cases like this (where no ToS is specified), is there?
[SWI] Rory Starks: I am not aware of any.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: We're talking about original ideas in one case here, and digital items in another. I don't think the same standards should apply.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Not really, because nobody that I know of has failed to stick in a term keeping the IP if that's what they wanted.
[ZAM] Malgayne: That's definitely true, Dmitri
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Dimitri - doesn't it depend on the type of environment?
[ZAM] Malgayne: It's one thing to talk about this gold I have farmed on my hunter as being "mine"
[ZAM] Malgayne: It's another entirely to think of this hunter guide I have posted on the WoW forums as being "mine"
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: I can create something completely new and different in SL. That's different, to me, than mining a bar of whatever it is in UO.
Joe: What about a game like Diablo II, Dimitri, where you can create unique items with that Cube... thing?
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: And closer to creating a comment, or a poem, or whatever.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Even though in both cases, the ToS may specify that it belongs to Blizzard
[SWI] Rory Starks: You have quite a treasure in that Horadric Cube.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: It's purely ideological for me, but no, I think that ideas should be the creator's, regardless of location. Things and objects in the spaces are a different animal, and there I lean towards the rights of the creators of the spaces to set their own laws.
[ZAM] Malgayne: I still think that's not the same issue, Joe
[ZAM] Malgayne: Because Blizzard in that case created a system in which you could combine variables as you chose and get certain results
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Yeah, I'm attempting to separate ideas and IP from "things" however digital, too.
Joe: So what about MIT's term paper writer, Casey?
Joe: Is the gibberish that spits out after you Mad Libs your way through it yours?
[ZAM] Malgayne: That's like telling a calculator that you "own" the results of the calculations, because you selected the digits to input
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Dimitri - in other words, would you agree that if I made a picture with gold on my roof in UO, that's my creation and I should own the rights to it regardless. But the gold itself, that may be the creator's?
[USC] Dmitri Williams: I would.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Got it. I think we're on the same page on that.
* [ZAM] Malgayne isn't familiar with the tool
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Or at least it's the creator's option to set rights, anyway.
[SWI] Rory Starks: It's in the creator's best interest to do so.
[ZAM] Malgayne: But if it is what I'm guessing it is, then I think it's safe to assume that at the very least the product would not be EXCLUSIVELY yours.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Just like if I make a machinima in WoW it's not exclusively mine either
Joe: Question: Where does the rest of the panel side on the machinima point?
Joe: Is machinima yours?
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Doesn't some of this vary depending on whether the "idea" or "thing" has value outside of the world's context? Like you invent some IP in SL and it's yours and you can use it on the web or in business or whatever. But if you can only use the thing in that space, it's probably not the same kind of IP. So, yes, machinima is a case where you can take it elsewhere.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Well, I'm a fan of the EULA rule - it's just not yours if you signed something saying it's not (and that's basically how the law works on this) but there's room for ideological disagreement on that.
dkelly1: Erik Bethke at GoPets has posted on his blog an interesting challenge: for the community to create a universal EULA for online games/worlds that clearly assigns certain rights of ownership to participants/gamers.
[SWI] Rory Starks: Unless otherwise stated, I would say that machinima is not owned by its creator.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Dmitri I would assume that whether the item has value or not, the law (and moral issues) are basically the same. The difference, I imagine, is because in the case of things that don't have any external value, no one really cares.
Joe: Question: Can we really defer to the EULA anymore? Recent court cases, in addition to some old shrink-wrap license rulings, seem to side with the user on the "by doing something you agree to something." So, assuming WoW's EULA is invalid, does your opinion on ownership change?
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Dimitri - are you suggesting that people who sign EULA/TOS that give up IP rights in creations shouldn't, ideologically, be held to that?
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: That goes with Joe's question, actually.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Sure, but a nuance of what I'm saying is that even things which can be bartered on outside of the game space should still have this sensibility applied. So if the sword can't be used elsewhere, then hey, it's not really yours as much.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Dmitri, you really think the level of ownership is dependent on the value of the property?
[ZAM] Malgayne: That seems like a slippery slope to me
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Oh, I leave the legal answer to the lawyers, but I do think that people who create ideas should own them.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Not value--place of usability.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Oh--as in, if the IPs only value is within the game, then the game's creators can claim a greater level of ownership?
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Right.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Got it
[SWI] Rory Starks: That would make sense.
[ZAM] Malgayne: It's a little hard to tell, with EULAs
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Joe - I think a well written EULA will stand up. But taking your question head on, I think that if the WoW's EULA is defeated, you'd default to users owning what they earned in world and being able to sell it at will. Just like anything else that's not protected (finding rocks on the ground IRL).
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Of course, Blizzard could delete it all at any time, and you'd have a hard time arguing that they should be prevented from doing so too.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Isn't it true that EULAs are binding presuming they don't break the law in and of themselves?
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: That's right, Malgayne, though some "click here" stuff has been questioned, and a few defeated (e.g. Second Life's arbitration clause) if it's "unconscionable" -- which is usually a fairly high standard.
[ZAM] Malgayne: We're going to be asking Ben a LOT of questions. Thank God you found a lawyer. :P
Joe: Question: Ok, shifting gears here. What about resellers? Aside from the legal side, is the service they provide (buying gold from players in order to sell it to others) detrimental to players' experience? A gentleman by the name of Antonio Hernandez is suing IGE. Hernandez' attorney, Richard Newsome, has said, "It's kind of like, if someone pays for a ticket to go see a movie, and if someone else comes in behind them and kicks their seat, you can get them to stop doing that. We're just trying to get IGE to stop kicking the seats." Are resellers and farmers "kicking the seats"? Can you ban kicking seats? Can you make it illegal?
[ZAM] Malgayne: I don't know if you can necessarily make it illegal
[ZAM] Malgayne: Though kicking seats has its own, like, assault issues
[SWI] Rory Starks: It would be difficult to enforce -- at least in current games
[USC] Dmitri Williams: yes, yes, no, yes
[ZAM] Malgayne: But I don't think you can necessarily make "acting detrimentally to your game experience" against the law
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: illegal is the wrong word - implies criminality.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: What you're talking about is a civil law concept - interfering with an agreement between two parties.
[ZAM] Malgayne: But you can make it against the rules of the game.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Ben: Precisely.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: A user makes a deal with Blizzard to exchange $X for a month of play time.
dkelly1: Secondary markets are good. THey grow and support primary markets. Bad behaviour (dupers, hackers, in-game spammers) is what we should try to manage out of the business. And we believe gamers should be able to trade with one another and not have to buy from a B2C.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: If another user makes it worth less than $X somehow, there's an argument that they can sue.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Hence, that case.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: I don't think it's a bad case.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: There's going to be a legal answer here and a moral one. I don't know that they're going to match in all cases. But it's important to separate them because the best solutions aren't always legal. Sometimes they're game mechanics and sometimes they're social solutions.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Morally, here? I see it as just fine to run a secondary market in things like accounts, stuff, whatever. But not if you're using outsides scripts to mine gold, catch fish, etc. Basically, if you play by the rules, it seems fine to me to sell it to people with less time on their hands.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Well, morally I think the issue depends on the game
dkelly1: And the contingency lawyer in miami is making a dangerous argument: his client's time has value and IGE is damaging that value. That argument could support IGE's right to buy from gamers (their time has value) and resell.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: There's no way I could pick up WoW and have fun right now if I didn't buy an account. I just don't have time anymore to grind out a character.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: That's a *really* interesting point, dkelly1
[SWI] Rory Starks: SOE's Station Exchange is a good example of a company legitmizing the process for players -- so at least they don't feel like they are breaking some moral code
[ZAM] Malgayne: There are some games that were designed with the secondary market in mind
Joe: Question: Do you think it's really right to sue someone for what's technically playing the game, though? Unless someone's speficially cheating, gold farming, the act of killing stuff a lot to make gold, isn't cheating, or is it? A majority of Xfire respondents say gold farming isn't cheating. Is farming cheating, or as Julian Dibbell suggests, does farming betray an inherent flaw in game design?
[ZAM] Malgayne: Station Exchange is a great example
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: How does that work, Rory?
[USC] Dmitri Williams: The basic problem stems from game mechanics that equate time with value. Until that changes, this never goes away.
[SWI] Rory Starks: Same goes for the pre-rolled characters you can purchase for UO.
[ZAM] Malgayne: You need to specify, Joe
dkelly1: I believe that is why blizzard will not support the suit (friend of court). in fact, maybe they will help make it go away...?
Joe: whoa, sorry. i hit some lag on that last question :P
[ZAM] Malgayne: Farming is never cheating
[ZAM] Malgayne: Farming in MMOs is often the only method of progression
[ZAM] Malgayne: It's RMT that's the moral issue
[SWI] Rory Starks: They have a couple servers set up for players to engage in RMT
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: I'm talking about 3rd party scripts, multilogins, etc.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Julian's right. But he's also a ninja looter, so . . .
* [virtuallyblind.com] Ben grins.
Joe: So why sue IGE?
dkelly1: contigency fees. he's fishing.
[SWI] Rory Starks: I see just general farming as annoying as somebody spamming the high kick button in a fighting game.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: People hate cheating. It's socialized into us. And a non-cheating space is a large part of the value of game--social and economic.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Devaluing something I'm paying for. -- And I'm not sure it's all about the contingency fees, otherwise, I think he'd have named Blizzard.
[ZAM] Malgayne: IGE isn't made up of gold farmers
[ZAM] Malgayne: IGE was a resaler
[ZAM] Malgayne: They bought gold from farmers and sold it at a profit
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: But why them? Big target, yeah.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Well known company. Successful. Has money. Just like about 99% of all suits.
dkelly1: No, he wants to get a class certified and then settle out with IGE. And then he takes it to every other B2C he can find.
[ZAM] Malgayne: It's important to differentiate between gold farming and gold selling
[USC] Dmitri Williams: IGE plays the roel of drug dealer. In one sense they're just making the transactions more efficient so more power to them. In another sense, they're hurting social goods like communities.
Joe: Is there really much of an in-game difference, though Casey? Either way, it's a bunch of gold that wasn't designed to be in the economy
Joe: WHat's the difference between an uberguild farming like crazy to get their members epic mounts and a casual guild buying a bunch of gold to get their members epic mounts?
[ZAM] Malgayne: Joe, are you arguing that there's a legal or moral infraction involved in repeatedly grinding on the same monster for hours to earn some gold?
dkelly1: the only gold that isn't designed to be in the economy is duped or hacked gold. Everything else was acquired through game play.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Exactly. That's the method by which gold is generated
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Wait - is "farming" to you just doing some crappy thing over and over (killing monster, mining, whatever?)
[ZAM] Malgayne: Let me define terms:
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Because that seems fine. I see no real difference. The difference is when they're using bots, breaking TOS, etc.
[SWI] Rory Starks: In the lore sense of the game, it is as if a player gave another player a large sum of money
[USC] Dmitri Williams: The difference is cheating, Joe. It may be cheating to avoid a mechanics flaw, but it's still cheating, so it'll get flak.
[ZAM] Malgayne: There are three issues here--
[ZAM] Malgayne: Is it wrong to farm gold?
[ZAM] Malgayne: Is it wrong to farm gold using hacks or exploits?
[ZAM] Malgayne: And:
[ZAM] Malgayne: Is it wrong to sell gold you have farmed to another player for real world currency?
dkelly1: no, yes, No
[ZAM] Malgayne: My answers would be no, yes, and maybe. :)
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Morally, no, yes, yes.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: No, Yes, No (as long as it's not via #2)
[ZAM] Malgayne: I think everyone can agree that there's nothing wrong with going out and farming some gold
[SWI] Rory Starks: No, Yes, Maybe
[ZAM] Malgayne: It's the only way to get gold in most MMOs
Joe: That brings us back to the design flaw question :P
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Again, farming... just doing something repetitively, or using macros, bots, etc. against the TOS?
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: RIGHT.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Because, if the former, then just fix the game so that doesn't happen if you don't want it.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Random spawn, etc.
Joe: OK, let's take some questions from the floor. Hate to cut this off.
dkelly1: RMT is not necessarily a symptom of a design flaw.
[ZAM] Malgayne: When I say farming in this case, I am referring to activites that do not break any of the terms of use of the game
Joe: Question: This one is from dakirakhartas: So far there has been a lot of discussion about the property rights for the player in the main room. Also in the open floor there has been discussion about the effects certain choices can have on game economies. What are your thoughts on how these economic changes affect the player and their community?
[USC] Dmitri Williams: True, Dan, but it's certainly larger when there's a flaw.
[ZAM] Malgayne: I think that it's easy for economic changes within the virtual economy of the game to affect the fun factor
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: I think that nerfing/buffing classes is inevitable, and while it bugs people every time it happens, it has to be done to balance a play cycle.
[ZAM] Malgayne: When TBC came out, it was a lot less fun to level jewelcrafting than it is now. :)
dkelly1: net result is likely increased utility
[SWI] Rory Starks: I think that large economic changes can have a definite affect on the community -- like if players feel they are being left out of some meta-activity
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: That, and gold sinks, are how you manipulate an economy.
[SWI] Rory Starks: Jewelcrafting is a good example, Mal
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Inflation can ruin the time/money tradeoff, but there are things designers can do. I like Blizzard's "binding" as a tool for mitigating some of the economic flow pressures.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: That's a good point, Rory. When they put in the Million Goodies Sword of Whatever to take some money out of the economy, people who don't get one are sad.
Joe: Question: Here's one from [Platnex] Wildhammer Eu: I have heard that a recent online game in China requires players to read the TOS and they are randomly Tested on it. do you think a system like that would work for the european market?
dkelly1: most game economies are naturally inflationary: more people playing over time increases money supply
[SWI] Rory Starks: Has it worked in China?
[ZAM] Malgayne: Joe, I obviously dont' have any support for this, but I strongly suspect that without some other very good reason to play, such a game would fail in the US
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: I doubt it works in the China market, to be frank. I expect people just look at it as a minigame.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: It would, however, give a better argument to the company for enforcement if they kept records.
[SWI] Rory Starks: It reminds me of the KoL chatroom basic grammar and spelling test.
[ZAM] Malgayne: I mean, if that was the cost of playing the next WoW expansion, ti might nonetheless be successful
[ZAM] Malgayne: Just because WoW is a steamroller at this point
[USC] Dmitri Williams: It'd annoy players unless it was made fun or worth doing.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Yeah
[SWI] Rory Starks: That would be an interesting in-game quest.
dkelly1: why do we want to erect barriers for people to access and enjoy games?
Joe: Question: One from |WND|mastermc0: If companies like Blizzard bought and sold gold at a set official rate would this control virtual moneys cost in real(non-digital) currency?
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Good question - China also has a 5hr max playtime law for MMOs.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Joe, I'm interested to see how this works out for SoE
[ZAM] Malgayne: I think by definition it would have to control the value of in-game currency
dkelly1: economic history has proven that fixed exchange rates do not work
[ZAM] Malgayne: Though I imagine some people would start trying to undercut SoE
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Right. SL is trying that (though they just sell, and control rate with sinks) and many, many people are predicting a huge crash.
dkelly1: so in that case there would likely still be a black market. like Russia in the 80s.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: If Blizz played the role of the central bank, they'd have to be prepared to absorb the fluctuations, and that would require real money.
dkelly1: and why would a developer want to buy back currency? that's not a good business model. let gamers buy from gamers. that benefits all, including the developer
[SWI] Rory Starks: And even if gold had a fixed rate, that wouldn't affect the value of items in the game, so players would certainly have the opportunity to undercut Blizzard's rates
Joe: Question: One from KoF ßmkħ: Is buying/selling gold wrong in all games or only ones that violate the ToS?
[SWI] Rory Starks: Well, I suppose it would affect the value of the items, but they wouldn't remain equivalent to the gold's rate
[USC] Dmitri Williams: morally?
[ZAM] Malgayne: I don't think selling gold is wrong in all games
[SWI] Rory Starks: Definitely not in every game.
[ZAM] Malgayne: I do think it's wrong if the game was not designed with it in mind
[ZAM] Malgayne: Magic: The Gathering is a great example
[ZAM] Malgayne: MTG, as well as most TCGs, is fundamentally an RMT-based system--
[ZAM] Malgayne: The more money you pay, the more cards you have access to, the better your deck is
dkelly1: I do not think it is wrong,
[ZAM] Malgayne: It's exactly like buying gold in an MMO
[SWI] Rory Starks: Legends of Norrath has a different approach, though I am certain that players will approach RMT the same as they do in Magic: the Gathering Online
Joe: Question: Casey, what about in UO, though? Up until EA Mythic took over, it was A-OK with the devs. But Mythic's stance on RMT is very different than Richard Garriott's. What's right or wrong, then?
[ZAM] Malgayne: And no one every complained that buying more cards was "wrong"
[SWI] Rory Starks: LoN's EULA states that SOE owns the cards, which I believe is different than MtGO
[ZAM] Malgayne: At the same time though, if I sat down with someone to play Chess
[ZAM] Malgayne: And that person plunked down a $20 to buy himself an extra queen
[ZAM] Malgayne: I would be pissed off
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: I just don't think it's "wrong" at all. And more importantly, it's a reality that developers simply have to deal with.
[ZAM] Malgayne: And I think gold selling in WoW is very similar to that case
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: That's the thing, Mal. Chess' "developers" have made it impossible.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: There's only one queen, and the pieces match, and you can't really bring another one in.
dkelly1: RMT can only happen in a game where the developer has created an item transfer capability
[ZAM] Malgayne: Well, not really--I mean there's nothing stopping you from dropping another queen on the table except the other player saying "Hey man, that's not cool"
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: And stopping play.
[SWI] Rory Starks: Monopoly might be a better example.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Which you'd have a right to do in any MMo where it happens.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Right
dkelly1: so it's ok to give it away, its ok to barter in game, its ok for a guild to charge fees, but I can't give you $10 outside of the game?
[ZAM] Malgayne: But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's not cheating
[USC] Dmitri Williams: I think's it's wrong, but I may be in the minority.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: I draw the line at the way it was acquired.
[ZAM] Malgayne: Dan, I think if Blizzard tells you "You're not allowed to do that in our game, it's against the rules", then what argument do you have?
dkelly1: I not only think it's ok, I think it's good for the industry.
[ZAM] Malgayne: It might have been foolish of Blizzard to say that to you
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: If it's exploited out of the system, yeah. But if it's just one guy trading his time for some other guy's money, so what?
[ZAM] Malgayne: But Blizzard said it, so what can you do?
Joe: OK, guys, final question.
[ZAM] Malgayne: It really is as simple as: the game developer says "These are the rules" and you either break them or not.
dkelly1: the rules are wrong. we need to change the rules. and let's recognize that the rules do not reflect reality
[ZAM] Malgayne: I'm not arguing necessarily that they're good rules
* [virtuallyblind.com] Ben nods. There's an argument, though, that they don't get to control what you do outside of the world.
[ZAM] Malgayne: I AM arguing that if you break the rules, rather than attempting to get the rules changed, that makes you a cheater.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Like banning people for web postings, etc. It's not a real strong argument, but it's there.
[ZAM] Malgayne: I hope that doesn't come across as personal slight, that wasn't my intent
dkelly1: or a revolutionary
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Viva le RMT.
Joe: Question: What about the future? Where is virtual property going, as a business? Will a company as big as Blizzard ever sell gold? Will microtransactions rule the day? What will we be debating in five years?
[USC] Dmitri Williams: RMT takes value from some people without asking them. That's why I tend to not like it.
dkelly1: RMT exists. Lots of gamers find it helpful and valuable. The industry must find a solution that addresses this need. Listen to the consumers....
[SWI] Rory Starks: I would look to the web as an example.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: It's moving this way: a company will eventually just call them "dollars" outright.
[ZAM] Malgayne: I have never encountered an online activity that produces this level of polarization in the community
[SWI] Rory Starks: People buy and sell domain names all the time, but there is little discussion about this being a "virtual" transaction
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: And dispense with the pretense that they're not real.
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: (or Euros, or whatever)
[ZAM] Malgayne: Wowhead was purchased by a company that at one time in the past had also owned a separate company that engaged in RMT
[SWI] Rory Starks: I'm certain that companies like Blizzard will eventually sell in-game currency to players -- EA already does it with games that don't even have an online component
dkelly1: RMT will become more accepted and part of most developers' business model.
[ZAM] Malgayne: But if you had posted videos of the Wowhead developers killing puppies, the outcry would not have been more violent
dkelly1: in-game advertising was initially controversial.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: Games will continue to fight RMT with varying success. But so long as there is demand, there is supply. The "bad guys" aren't Dan's service or IGE or anything like that. It's the people who want to shortcut. Just like in drug trading, we spend time on the sellers when we should spend time on the buyers.
Microtransactions would revolutionaize everything, but it's up to the credit company cartels to relax their per-trade cut. Don't hold your breath for them to think long-term.
[NHN] Robin John Rosales: Microtransactions is the main function of our free to play model. Most real money purchases are for aesthetic avatar items. The developers of our games continually look to make sure that power up type purchases do not significantly alter the balance of the game.
[ZAM] Malgayne: I think that's a really solid model
[SWI] Rory Starks: We had the same arguments back when MP3s were booming and users had very few options in which to acquire these things legally
[SWI] Rory Starks: All the big players eventually fell in line and offered services to their customers and opinions changed (a bit)
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: tiki - I like that model a lot. Basically, code around the problem, and use RMT to fund "cool" not "useful"
* [ZAM] Malgayne seconds that notion
[ZAM] Malgayne: I'm perfectly willing to admit that RMT may well be "the wave of the future"
[ZAM] Malgayne: And I've heard studies that suggest that 30% or more of MMO players engage in RMT
dkelly1: Just think of it this way, a healthy secondary market will grow the primary market, which means investment in games will increase.
[ZAM] Malgayne: But as I said, I've never seen ANYTHING piss off users more. :)
dkelly1: we did a survey last year with ziff davis. 30% reported having engaged in RMT.
[USC] Dmitri Williams: We'll have some public stats on that within the next few months from research done w/SOE. I think 30 may be high
[ZAM] Malgayne: I'd love to see them
dkelly1: varies by game, I suspect
[SWI] Rory Starks: Same here
dkelly1: thanks, xfire, for setting this up
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Thanks again to all our amazing guests! Everyone has brought amazing view points
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: And thanks to Joe, for moderating this rousing debate
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Good job to users the Open Debate Room. Strong points were made, and invites and promotions in The Two-Handed Sword Clan are in order!
Joe: Hey, thanks to the folks at Xfire for making it all happen.
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Thank you all for attending. We will make the transcripts available at www.xfire.com/debate as soon as possible.
[ZAM] Malgayne: My thanks too, this was a lot of fun
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: See you all next time. For more Xfire events, check out http://www.xfire.com/cms/xf_events/
[virtuallyblind.com] Ben: Great, thanks, mods, and the users in the open debate room too.
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: And finally, 5 debaters win an Xfire Tee-Shirt!
They are:
Joe: memememe
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: :[SB]::DarkMan
]SoV[ Ferris
danzar
uT | Greaterix
Mr.Pickles{EgC}
[ZAM] Malgayne: Grats. :)
Joe: i'm calling fix
[Xfire-TTHS] Debateox: Winners, PM me. Joe, we'll talk. Have a great day all!