Sony Bans Sale of Virtual Items from Everquest

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.

Comments

This is a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ebay auctioning was a real problem for Everquest. Because of the prices that items were being sold for, large groups of people were monopolizing certain areas of the game where the valuable items drop and farming them for sale on Ebay. This made it impossible for some users to get these items themselves.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Sony Had Good Reason

[Dredd13]

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.

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.

Re:MUDs

[Chris Johnson]

There's another parallel, though perhaps a bit controversial- in online multiplayer flightsims it's possible to have 'easy mode' in play. Warbirds spent much time with mixed easy and full realism in the main arena where everybody wanted to be- and it really got in the way.

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...

...unless of course he is in easy mode, in which case you are meat: the entire point of your historically accurate defensive maneuver is negated. Same if you're taking off from an embattled field (like a silly bugger, but it's fun) and roaring about ten feet off the deck dogfighting with people- it's amazingly exciting to be doing this and fighting to hang on to the air in incredibly hostile situations, but when you know some of those people swooping around ten feet off the deck are in arcade-game mode and will _not_ have to worry about blowing E or pulling too many Gs, blacking out and digging in a wingtip, it really sours the whole thing.

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!"

...this was just a few days _before_ I learned about the easy mode options that let him do what he did by merely yanking around the stick like he was playing Mario Party without ever blacking out or stalling... 95% of turning rate isn't as much as a full-on 100% full realism turning rate, but when you can slam into it without paying attention and throw the plane from -95% to 95% in a tenth of a second by just banging the stick against its stops, well, we're talking about a Situational Awareness advantage that will just break down the spirit of anyone still trying to play the game as a sim with the full demands of an aircraft.

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...

Well, there's foolishness all around.

[cpt kangarooski]

Obviously EQ is going mad with power (obStonecutters) what with the earlier attempt to prevent people from firmly bashing on the rules, and now this.

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?

Re:Property rights.

[Lemmy Caution]

That begs some big questions:

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?

well...there is always Ultima

[einstein]

sigh. there goes my dreams of growing up, making a multiplayer computer game that has items that have actual cash value. From there I would establish trading and allow people to buy things for real currency. Then, I would go into the game, give myself millions in game currency, then sell it for real world money, then retire to a non extradition treaty country. it's s simple dream, really.

Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat

[Dredd13]

Everyone should read The Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat.

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.

Free speech issues?

[jennis]

I think CmdrTaco's side note actually brings up an interesting issue worth discussion. Is Sony's naming policy fair, or does it unjustly restrict one's freedom of expression?
Take a look at the naming policy 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.

Make Our Own...

[Izaak]

What we need to do is make our own open source massively multiplayer games that no single corporation has control over. WorldForge seems to have potential... and I'm working on my own such project. Then it could be like Studio54 of old. Get through the door and anything is permitted once you are inside. :-)

Thad

It's bad, yet it's good.

[prizog]

Clearly, it's a form of censorship... or something... It's a corporation messsing with a community... And all that stuff.

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

[Firinne]

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.

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

[Manaz]

I've played UO now for... well, close on three years - since JUST after beta.

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...

[Xidus]

Used to be on AOL (yes, AOL, stop looking at me like that) that you had to pay per minute. A text-based game called Federation built up a surprisingly large player base (peaked at around 1000 online at the busiest part of the day -- I think it hit more like 2000 when the link was posted on the Welcome screen to AOL). AOL came out with a feature where you could give someone else an AOL gift certificate -- essentially, a credit to their bill.

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.
--
$ more ~/.sig
******** .sig: Not a text file ********

They're doing WHAT!!!

[ronfar]

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

Ok, first of all I have to say "Bye-bye karma points, as I am about to majorly knock Sony."

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

[jinschoi]

I have heard that Sony's problem isn't with sale of virtual items for money, but the support headaches it causes. People will buy an EQ item on eBay, send the real money, get gipped, then complain to EverQuest's customer support.

There is also the subsidiary problem of people "farming" creatures who have attractive items to sell for real money.

Somewhere out there...

[gad_zuki!]

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.

Karma

[segfault7375]

I'll pay $1/point for some Slashdot karma :o)

segfault@bellatlantic.net

Hold on to your reality

[Trollusk]

cloak == real-world item

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

[gilroy]

Quoth the poster:

It [money] only has value because the government says it does.

I'm no libertarian, but even I would argue that money has value only because the citizenry says it does. Money is backed by our faith in the economy. If a people decide the money is worthless, it soon becomes so (post-Communist Russia, anyone? For that matter, Communist Russia itself.) Look at what happened to Confederate currency: Richmond might have decreed that CS$1 had a certain value in gold, but that didn't mean people would trade gold for it.

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.

Re:Private/public ambiguities

[gilroy]

Quoth the poster:

Now, these communities are privately owned, unambiguously. All property of Sony or AOL/Time/Warner or whoever.

Is it really so clear-cut? Oh, sure, there are licenses and such, but that's not an airtight case. One could argue, quite strenuously -- I'm not sure "successfully", but hey -- that the users of the online community become, in a sense, "authors" of the history of the community. And copyright law automatically grants rights to authors or co-authors. We might very well see an emerging conflict between different areas of IP law (oh, imagine that).

At some point, if the communities grow large enough and vibrant enough, Sony might find their ownership evaporating into mist.