Castronova's Notes on Hacker Court

scubacuda writes "Cal State Fullerton's Edward Castronova (who recently wrote an excellent analysis of gender inequality between male and female Everquest avatars) has just updated his notes on 'Hacker Court', a mock trial held at Vegas' Black Hat Conference on whether virtual items destroyed during the hack of an online video game constituted real loss. 'No verdict was reached, but the jury and audience agreed that the damages were real,' says Castronova."

Comments

OK....so?

[Scalli0n]

A mock jury decided a mock decision.

How about we mock the geeks that are still crying over this?

Re:OK....so?

[Frymaster]

How about we mock the geeks that are still crying over this?

feel free. but the exercise actually has touched on an important issue: the "value" of "virtual" items.

let's look at two theories of value, shall we?

1. labour theory of value: both adam smith and karl marx agree on how to assess value (whoda thunk?) value is represented by labour. (marx's theory is here, adam smith here) the bottom line is that the value of an object is the labour that goes into making it. raw materials are "just there" and only have value because of the labour expended to extract and refine them. add up the work hours to make something and you have its value.

   now, with virtual items this is tricky. baboo the barbarian "worked" for several hundred hours to win the +12 shears of torpiary. so, to baboo, thos shears have a "value" of 100 hours. however, some programmer wrote up those shears in 2 minutes and created a dozen of them with a keystroke. so, to the authors of the game, the shears are worth 2.01 minutes of labour.

   the bottom line is: the labour value of virtual items depend on who you are. this is totally unlike "hard" items (ie, real shears). labour value theory fails us.

2. the scarcity theory of value: this is the supply and demand stuff everyone seems enamoured with these days. you know it. now, we'll ignore things like elasticity and fungibility to keep it simple.

   to baboo, there are only 12 shears in "existance". since they are highly sought after (demand) and there are very few (supply) the value of the shears is high. however, the authors of the game can create, destroy, modify and, most importantly, duplicate these shears with near-zero effort. the supply can be upped instantly. the shears can be modified to become useless, thus reducing the demand. the authors can make as many shears for themselves as they wish...

   so, once again, the value depends on who you are. totally unlike real shears. the scarcity theory breaks down with virtual things.

so. do virtual items have value? no matter how you calculate value, the answer depends on who you are. this is a major readjustment of the whole concept of value and will need to be addressed by governments and the law as the distribution and use of virtual items (not just in the gaming world, but everywhere) becomes more prevalent.

we don't need a digital millenium copyright act, we need a digital millenium value theory. of course, coming up with that will require some knowledge of economic theory and some hard thinking - so don't expect one from your politicians anytime soon.

Re:OK....so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents header should read:

Re:OK....so? (Score:9, Too Much Time On Hands)
by Frymaster (171343) on Friday August 01, @01:44AM (#6585833)
(http://frymaster.dyndns.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 30, @12:53PM)

Re:OK....so?

[Anonymous Coward]

All you are saying is that Marx and Smith are wrong. "Labour value theory fails us." - we already know that. Value has always been a relative thing, and has depended on culture, class, etc.. It is an entirely human ascription and as such, has no basis in objective reality.

Re:OK....so?

[Arker]

What you're talking about isn't new, it's called the subjective theory of value, and the austrian school of economists worked it out a long time ago.

Re:OK....so?

[Bios_Hakr]

How much time went into the design process for the shears? How about the time playtesting the shears to make sure they fit into the world properly? The labour is not just the coding time, but the entire systems development life cycle comes into play.

As for real shears, what about shears your grandfather owned? They may have value beyond that of the labour spent making them. They would also cary a value based on the fact that your grandfather owned them for 50 years and used them to trim his prized rosebush.

Re:OK....so?

[nacturation]

They [shears] would also carry a value based on the fact that your grandfather owned them for 50 years and used them to trim his prized rosebush.

Of course, they'd have a slightly different value had he used them to trim your grandmother's bush.

Re:OK....so?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much time did you spend writing that post and was it worth it considering all it got you was some karma(as worthless as the shears) and some quite stupid responses by people who did not put nearly as much thought into their posts as you, or even fully understand your point?

Re:OK....so?

[JaredOfEuropa]

"the bottom line is: the labour value of virtual items depend on who you are. this is totally unlike "hard" items (ie, real shears). labour value theory fails us."

The notion that a virtual item has little or no value to the game company is not completely true. For one, game companies may sell in-game items to some extend. Witness Ultima Online, where the game company will buff your character for real-life dollars.

In-game items are almost like currency when it comes to value. Like currency, virtual items have little or no innate value ,yet people attach a value to them (measured in other currency, time, or goods). Scarcity of in game items is seemingly not an issue for a game company, just like governments who can 'always print more money'. If the game company decides to 'print more items', their real-world value will drop accordingly. Like central banks, game companies have a responsibility if they want to control in-game inflation, and companies will and have fired employees caught creating valuable items for themselves or for others.

Re:OK....so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Paper money has essentially the same properties. (I think there's probably an argument that the value of all real world items depends on who your are, but paper money is obvious.)

and fwiw, the "labor theory", aka just price, has failed in practice (in the real world). When replaced with supply and demand driven price, that succeeded. So there's a reason everyone is "enamoured" with it.

Re:OK....so?

[Simon Brooke]

however, the authors of the game can create, destroy, modify and, most importantly, duplicate these shears with near-zero effort. the supply can be upped instantly. the shears can be modified to become useless, thus reducing the demand. the authors can make as many shears for themselves as they wish...

Wahey! Back on topic...

This is the problem with proprietary software. It's value lies in scarcity, but the scarcity is patently artificial. Artificial scarcity is what copyright and patent laws exist to protect. What is probably in the long term the single most important difference between proprietary and open source software is that open source software does not have any scarcity, either real or artificial; and consequently can be reproduced indefinitely at marginal cost.

Which brings us to another kind of value, utility value, which is closely related to labour value. If someone has a job to do which takes them ten hours a week, and you give them a tool which allows them to do it in one hour a week, you've saved them nine hours a week (which they can either spend sitting under a tree sipping beer, or doing other jobs which earn more wealth). By giving them that tool at zero or marginal cost you've actually increased their wealth.

With proprietary software and artificial scarcity, a considerable proportion of the wealth created by the provision of new tools goes to the 'intellectual property' owners of the tools, and you get obscene fortunes like Bill Gates'. Furthermore, many of the people who would benefit from the new tools can't afford to use them. With open source software, the wealth created by new tools is distributed among the users of the tools, and that means (modulo the (significant) cost of hardware) everyone who could benefit from them.

So if you contribute to open source software you're making a real contribution to the wealth of the world - not some game world, the real world - and if you make a significant contribution to some widely used software the amount of value you add to the world is very large.

Isn't that a better, more rewarding, and more fun thing to be doing with your spare time than arguing over virtual swords?

Re:OK....so?

[pfafrich]

now, with virtual items this is tricky. baboo the barbarian "worked" for several hundred hours to win the +12 shears of torpiary. so, to baboo, thos shears have a "value" of 100 hours. however, some programmer wrote up those shears in 2 minutes and created a dozen of them with a keystroke. so, to the authors of the game, the shears are worth 2.01 minutes of labour.

An interesting analysis, but in some sence your not comparing like with like. As I see it theres two different worlds going on here. The in game world which baboo exists in. Then there is the world of the sysadmin, if you like valhalla, the relm of the gods. Both the theorys of value work fine in both of the different world. The problem comes with the different value systems. Trying to translate one value system to another.

Clash of (monatary) value systems are common throughout the real world. When two culture come together: american indians selling NY for ten dollars. I guess you could see the a clash between parent and child, where one pound is worth very different things to each.

The parent-child example is quite good as its a similar sort of structure to sysadmin-player or indeed God(s)-man. Sysadmins should really be taking the roles of parents in that they are providing a safe and exciting world for the child/player to exist in. I'm meaning safe in a very week sense in that children are not going to threaterend by thing from the outside world (kidnapped etc), and that players are not going to be ripped off by hackers.

The hacker is an interesting ingredient in the mix. Actually someone exsisting in both the different worlds and exploiting the direrences in exchage rates. A small theft in one world but a large theft in the other world. It might even be consider that they were obtained by a pact with the devil (another god like entity).

Posible solutions:

1. Eternal vigilance by the sysadmins to ensure the cosistance of the world.
2. Ensuring that its not posible to exploit the difference, say by digitally signing in game objects.
3. Using appropriate justice in the different systems. Minor penilaties in realworld, but in game world theft of a +12 shears: I would not like to think of the consequences which could be wrougth (could make for an interesting game though!)

   A final off topic thought, in paper D&D I always prefered being the DM, in those days 1 in every 10 players was a DM. Now its 1 in 10,000. I'd love to see online games where I could create my own worlds for others to play in.

Re:OK....so?

[cdrw]

Maybe they could make a better use of there time by getting the operators to improve security rather than wasting time with a mock jury?

Re:OK....so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Adam Smith needs revision!

Re:OK....so?

[Ed Avis]

So maybe an analogous question to ask would be: if you have a copy of Microsoft Word on your hard disk, and someone wipes it, what is the value of the damage caused? I'd say the time taken to reinstall Word, not the cost of buying another original Word CD at full retail price. Similarly the damage caused by deleting a virtual item is just the time taken for the sysadmin to recreate that item.

Re:OK....so?

[Buzz_Litebeer]

The shears in and of themselves are worth nothing at all!

The entire value comes from the service of playing the game. Getting items is a PART of the SERVICE of playing that game. By "spending 12 hours" to get the shears, you have spent 12 hours on the service in pursuit of enjoyment.

If the game company decided to nullify your service early, even if you have a level 60 everquest avatar, the only thing you SHOULD be able to get back is your unused subscription amount.

IE if you played 1 month of a payed for 6 month subscription, you should get the 5 months back that you arent allowed to play.

these online games are a SUBSCRIPTION BASED SERVICE. you agree to that when you sign up for them. I know you "feel bad" when you lose something online, i have lost some "important" items myself on these games due to poorly handled trades, but the thing is, when it comes down to it, you are playing a game, and the mechanics of the game are an interface to a service.

You did NOT put "work" into getting those items, no more than when you go to mcdonalds, buy a hamburger, did you put "work" into the seat because you decided to eat there.

You no more "own" the plate at a restaurant because they used it to serve food to you, than you own an item online.

now the question of "worth" is different, it may be "worth" money for you to give them an aspect of the service with which they do not want to invest time to be a part of (im talking about getting the shears from you with "real" money).

but dont feel bad that once you buy those shears, and someone then nerfs them, you havent "lost" any more money than you had lost before.

you simply now have an aspect of the service that is worthless to you.

Someone else isnt liable for your "loss" since you did not OWN what you traded for anyway.

You did not buy a "licence" to that object, so you have no loss in licencing fee. ;(

Re:OK....so?

[j3110]

I think the value should be measured in labor, but bounded by usefullness value.

If I work all day at bending paper clips straight, do the paper clips have more value?

The value of the items in the game can in no way be more valuable than the game itself. If you spent 20$/mo for a year, everything you have in the game summed up can be no more valuable than 240$. 240$ worth of entertainment would have been spoiled by the hackers, not 1,000$ worth of work to get the items. The usefullness of the items is set at 20$/mo worth of entertainment by your agreement with the game vendor.

Isn't this how you measure the profitability of an idea to market anyhow? You maximize supply/demand * sell price - labor. If this is >=0, then you have a good idea. The poor economic skills of those that invest 8h/d worth of "labor" into a game can't be blamed on you. They knew full well when they started playing the game that every item in the game is just a few bits on a server. They invested their time because of entertainment value, not because it was labor. They may be upset that their entertainment has been spoiled, but I don't see people sueing Lucas for 3 days worth of labor standing in line waiting for Episode 1 + 2 hours of viewing it + 7$ ticket. They chose to stand in line and watch the movie, they didn't choose for it to be bad. They can only be entitled to 7$.

Re:OK....so?

[attackiko]

Smith revised himself in his lifetime. He only applied labour theory of value to the "rude society" where no capital is used.

Re:OK....so?

[kien]

In-game items are almost like currency when it comes to value.

Hmmm, interesting. Does that mean E-bay is the precursor to an online Wall Street?

--K.

Re:OK....so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analysis is interesting. However, that an object's value depends on who you are applies to non-virtual items as well.

Say I'm a well-known baseball player. A baseball with my own autograph on it is practically worthless to me--and like the admins who could create dozens of new shears on a whim, I can create dozens of autographed balls with little effort. However, my autograph is worth a lot more to a collector. I do not think that we need a completely new value theory to handle these types of cases.

Who Cares

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all, mod me down.

verdict?

[Anonymous Coward]

>No verdict was reached, but the jury and audience agreed that the damages were real

Isn't that what a verdict is? When the jury all agrees?

Re:verdict?

[Khyeron]

Damages were real, but to pass verdict would have been to decide which side is guilty and say so. To say "the damages are real BUT" that 'but' is what invalidated the verdict. Sort of like saying that the "dissenting" opinion was 50%, which pretty much invalidates a majority vote. The article was quite short though and didn't elaborate much in my opinion.

Courts can often throw a case out without deciding in anyone's favor (thus it seems as if one person wins by being acquited, BUT depending on wording, having the case thrown out can be grounds for denying it an appeals hearing.)

On the other side having the case thrown out with teh words "but there was damage done that is real" can be seen not as a verdict but as admitting that IF something comes up later, this can be used as evidence that the court DID see it as damage but refrained from passing a verdict. (i.e. party a is guilty and will pay or party a is not guilty and has not to pay even though).

In my experience if a case is passed on like that it can be because a decisive verdict cannot be reached. I've never seen one go that way, but I'm sure the possibility is there in a very controversial case. (this would probably NOT be it :)

-Khye

Re:verdict?

[NewID]

This is by far the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life.

Re:verdict?

[Khyeron]

You ever appeal a case? Every word you and others say counts (for example if you plead guilty to any accident you are automatically guaranteed that if you are SUED over anyone else's health bills you will lose. You admitted guilt and did not attempt to clear your name. This (though you may not know it) automatically implies that you also accept any fault or blame and all it brings with it (lawsuits over health bills, property damage, etc, and believe me this is the united states, people sue for being stupid enough to spill fresh coffee on themselves and get 3.4 million... health and property damages can be quite nastier).

If your case is settled you still have to worry, but oddly enough if you are FOUND guilty but fight it, you're guaranteed that most lawsuits can actually be avoided or defeated assuming you provided convincing evidence and the jury was somewhat split.

If you don't believe me spend sometime in court and see how it comes out.

EXAMPLE: "While unintentional, Mr./Ms. (your name here)'s actions did cause damage however. Mr./Ms.(your name) did not intend to harm my client, but you were not prepared to respond to the situation. Therefore you were found not guilty of reckless endangerment, but were shown instead incompetent to operate the [insert piece of equipment or vehicle that caused accident and harm]. This lack of preparation / incompetence of Mr./Ms. (your name here) has rendered my client [insert name] with [insert overstated injuries and inflated health bills].")

Not that every lawyer would go to such an extent but don't be surprised to find someone likely to do something like that just to net some cash.[ahem.. Lowell "the hammer" Stanley] If you don't believe it, get sued sometime and see how fast you'll end up getting indebted to some schmuck if you don't cover your ass with every word you say (hence why paying a lawyer to help you is a smart thing to do when the risk is higher (workplace accidents, etc)). Oh and if you HIRE a lawyer, let them TALK, and carefully craft every scenario with them or at least go over them. Whether you sue or are sued, or served with an arrest warrant.

FINALE: if the original case's jury fails to convict the man or make him pay because they are split down the middle, they can sue him again on the basis that the original court was biased against videogame harm and time invested. OR the criminal justice section of the courts can take him in over the hack itself as a criminal or terrorist act with intent to humiliate and "defame" Mr. Morton or whatever they called the fictional plaintiff.

In a twist of fate the "Getta" company (if you read the articles) can sue the man for downtime and use the original case's findings and conclusion. (security breach, violation of license terms, etc)

-Khye

PS - I've typed TOO damn much and I'm tired... goodbye. Plus I've had enough of courts. Take it easy man... and if you ever get sued or arrested even for a parking ticket, never admit guilt. Go to a lawyer and see how you can get away without being screwed for years to come by saying the wrong thing.

PPS - and for the love of god, dress to impress, don't believe the justice being blind bullshit, judges often decide who's telling the truth or who deserves justice by who "respects" the courtroom more (hence who dresses better and who doesn't step out of line in the argument making). And since its their courtroom and they are justices what they say is final. Don't piss them off and TRY to make them like you since they ultimately decide your fate.

Damn

[Timesprout]

I read that as Casanova's Notes and I thought /. was finally going to tell me how to be a babe magnet.

Re:Damn

[Snoopy77]

1. Stop reading /.
2. ???
3. Babe magnet

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 2: shower

Sorry... no real loss.

[tinrobot]

I'm not an Everquest player, so I may be talking out my rear here, but the logic seems fairly simple.

Somebody with bad intentions hacks into the server and destroys your virtual items. Later, the hack is revealed. The sysadmin either goes to the backup or resets a few counters. Virtual items are returned to you. Problem is solved.

The only tangible loss I can see is the Sysadmin's time and effort.

Re:Sorry... no real loss.

[JaredOfEuropa]

"Somebody with bad intentions hacks into the server and destroys your virtual items. Later, the hack is revealed. The sysadmin either goes to the backup or resets a few counters. Virtual items are returned to you. Problem is solved."

If the company reverts the game server to the state of yesterday, the people who gained some valuable item today will be stiffed. It's not that simple. If the server is hacked and reverted, anyone can claim they found 'rare object xyz' that day and demand a replacement. For that reason, game companies rarely if ever offer replacements for lost items.

Keeping a detailed audit trail or journal of each and every object in the game will be difficult, and may prove to be too expensive.

Re:Sorry... no real loss.

[ShadowcatBlue]

"Somebody with bad intentions hacks into the server and destroys your virtual items. Later, the hack is revealed. The sysadmin either goes to the backup or resets a few counters. Virtual items are returned to you. Problem is solved."

I don't play EverQuest, but I have been playing Ragnarok Online for the past 4-5 months and they've had at least one (maybe 2) major incident of account hacking since I started. The one I remember, the GMs, after some delay, rolled back all of our items and money by a week. The only problem is, this affected EVERYONE and a lot of people weren't even affected by the hack (or even knew about it) in the first place and lost a lot of money and rare items gained in that time, myself included. I think during a later rollback (for reasons I can't remember) they tried to make it up to us by giving us a special double experience/double drop "event". It's debatable whether or not that tactic actually keeps players from being angry about rollbacks.

This is an easy one

[Anonymous Coward]

Just award them some virtual money.

Re:This is an easy one

[LoztInSpace]

Surely most money is virtual these days. I expect most "real" money exists solely on a disk somewhere at XYZ Bank/Visa data centre.

Re:This is an easy one

[sICE]

[blah] Never heard of Fort Knox? [/blah]

Anyway, you're probably right. Interrestingly enough some peoples were able to 'create' money out of nothing (like Serge Humpich).

And to stay on parent topic, the 'hacker' should first earn the virtual money to give back. Which probably means buying the game (in his situation, i wouldnt try with a cracked one). And spend some time playing to get the right amount of 'virtual' money...

...Or perhaps he should crack the server again and restore the same amount of items...

This rise a new question, what if, instead of deleteing, he randomly created more items and added them to peoples inventory? My bet would be you'd never heard 'bout him, most people wouldnt bother to complain if they get the +2 shoe of war from nike the great. But would they own something to him?

Re:This is an easy one

[llefler]

While it is interesting that Maine is working to restore A Fort Knox. It's not THE Fort Knox where gold reserves are stored.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/cur re ncy/fort-knox.html

Not exactly

[RLiegh]

The difference between a verdict and the jury simply all agreeing is wether or not what they agree upon is the matter being tried.

They could all agree that the moon is made of green cheese, but if the trail is regarding what caused the cow to jump over the moon, it is not a verdict.

Re:Not exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I realize that, but indeed what they agreed upon was the crux of the case at hand:

>a mock trial held at Vegas' Black Hat Conference on whether virtual items destroyed during the hack of an online video game constituted real loss.

Re:Not exactly

[Xoid629]

Well, there is sort of a difference between real damages and real loss. Real loss would seem to be equal to real world theft or intentional destruction of property. Real damages could just mean responsibility for wasting the time and effort people put into the game, maybe something like real world vandalism (there is probably a better analogy). At least that was the way I interpreted it... It does get more complicated when people pay real money for virtual items, of course.

Re:Not exactly

[Jedi Alec]

heh, if I encountered a more or less round object composed of green cheese full of craters I'd start leaping like hell too.

a!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they arrive at a value for the loss of pride associated with going to an Everquest convention?

I have a dream.

[paroneayea]

I have a dream that one day everyone will use the terms hacker and cracker correctly. Well, I guess that one's not going to happen today.

Re:I have a dream.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a dream that pedants like you will drop dead.

Does this mean virtual deaths are real too?

[happyhippy]

So Im looking at a couple of thousand life sentences for playing Counterstrike?

Re:Does this mean virtual deaths are real too?

[Scalli0n]

a thousand cyber life sentences.

Re:Does this mean virtual deaths are real too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Counterstrike doesn't count' since 99% of all people playing it are assholes and fuckweeds and need real death sentences.

Re:Does this mean virtual deaths are real too?

[Anonymous Coward]

CS players are a bunch of wankers. DoD is the best. Even though it went retail

Re:Does this mean virtual deaths are real too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you camped.

Fidel?

[InnovativeCX]

Haha, I hope I'm not (though I am certain that I am...) the only one that, at first glance, interpreted the headline as Fidel illegally obtaining some cheap Viagra on the 'net or some equally funny sexually-enabling object.

In all seriousness though, I have to admit that I have serious doubts regarding any impact that this story could possbily have...The 'mock trial' has no real-world implications, and even if it did, well...inconclusive.

So, why? this is the part where you rip into me for missing an 'obvious' point.

But What about the designers..?

[QLNESS]

While I understand the issue, if I spent hours of time leveling up, gsearch for secret items and rare bonuses I'd be pissed too, if someone hacked it and all my hard work was for nothing. But what about the devlopers who design the game constantly changing it, giving some really kewl items, then for no reason they nerf it out of existance, so it becomes worthless. I feel the next big jump in mmorpg's will be when the users have more control over what happens in the realm of the game, then things will become "interesting" to say the least.

Only if the operator is nice

[achurch]

Somebody with bad intentions hacks into the server and destroys your virtual items. Later, the hack is revealed. The sysadmin either goes to the backup or resets a few counters. Virtual items are returned to you.

I suspect that's the crux of the problem--whether or not the sysadmin would actually return the items/counters or just say "tough luck". As an off-and-on FFXI player, I've had to deal with Square taking the latter position (albeit on bugs rather than cracks) far too often. If it took you X number of days to acquire an item or the like, and through no fault of your own that item suddenly disappeared, then yes, the real time you spent acquiring that item is a real loss.

Re:Only if the operator is nice

[Alex]

Get a grip - its only a f**king game!

Alex

Re:Only if the operator is nice

[achurch]

Get a grip - its only a f**king game!

So is everything else. To each their own enjoyment.

Re:Only if the operator is nice

[Reapy]

"As an off-and-on FFXI player, I've had to deal with Square taking the latter position (albeit on bugs rather than cracks) far too often."

Isn't FFXI in beta still? Why are you complaining about what you lost in a beta test? You are beta testing the game... good job finding the bug... go find the next one, stop complaining, and do your job there.

If that still happens during release, then thats a problem, but not in a beta.

Real as well as virtual losses

[casuist99]

You can also look at the losses in this case as being a loss of real time and effort on the part of the people who created/obtained the virtual items. Sure it's a mock court, but the philosophical principles upheld are real in many ways.

Div's Happy Hour

[akedia]

I just want to take a moment to talk to all the retards.

So, you spend your real money in order to get pretend money in your online games.

Then, for the privilege of spending that pretend money - in a pretend world, on pretend things - you pay more real money, every month.

What a bunch of fucking brain surgeons.

(Credit goes to Penny Arcade. Seems apropros here. Seriously guys, get a life. It's disturbing.)

Re:Div's Happy Hour

[RLiegh]

What you described points to a good reason why I am turned off of online games particularly MUD -if I want to learn a scripting language -I'll do so for real; not in the context of some crappy [imho] text-based star trek MUD.

Re:Div's Happy Hour

[achurch]

I could make a snide remark about people who spend real money for the privilege of pretending to have sex, but I'll pass.

Re:Div's Happy Hour

[Idarubicin]

I just want to take a moment to talk to all the retards.

So, you spend your real money in order to get pretend money in your online games.

Then, for the privilege of spending that pretend money - in a pretend world, on pretend things - you pay more real money, every month.

I spent some real money the other day on a pretend world. It was a world created by Arthur C. Clarke. I was entertained for a few hours, and now that pretend world full of pretend things sits on my shelf.

Yesterday I went to the local video store, where I spent some more real money on yet another pretend world. Today, I returned the video--if I want to visit that pretend world again, I'll have to cough up more real money.

What's the difference between people who spend X dollars per month on Everquest et al. and the people who sink X dollars per month into satellite television? It's all entertainment. People don't usually buy either product with 'useful' ends in mind--they pay the money to be amused and pass the time. It's their money; it's their time. Sure, they could be giving both to more 'worthy' causes, but so could we all.

Re:Div's Happy Hour

[PainKilleR-CE]

I spent some real money the other day on a pretend world. It was a world created by Arthur C. Clarke. I was entertained for a few hours, and now that pretend world full of pretend things sits on my shelf.

and any time you want to revisit that pretend world, you can pick it back up off the shelf without spending any more money. Alternatively, you could've gone and picked it up from the library for free, as long as you returned it on time.

Yesterday I went to the local video store, where I spent some more real money on yet another pretend world. Today, I returned the video--if I want to visit that pretend world again, I'll have to cough up more real money.

Or, if it was a pretend world you really liked, you could've spent more money the first time to put it on your shelf. This is why I don't like renting videos, the only way it saves me money is when I rent something I don't like, in which case I still spent money to watch something I didn't like.

What's the difference between people who spend X dollars per month on Everquest et al. and the people who sink X dollars per month into satellite television?

The similarity only comes in if you spend $15/month on satellite television to watch the 'All Kevin Smith channel' and payed a $100 setup fee to put in the satellite equipment (and have all the other channels locked out) when the whole Kevin Smith library would've been about $100 on DVD in the first place.

I pay $50 for Final Fantasy X, I get to play it forever (though not FFXI). I pay $50 for SWG, I get to play it for 30 days after I go through the mandatory registration process, regardless of whether or not I actually play it during that time or whether or not there's a playable server near me during that time. After 30 days, FFX still works, SWG costs another $15 to keep playing.

Then again, if I were the type of person to get addicted to MMO games, maybe it would actually save me money in the long term, because I wouldn't need to buy any other games (and $15/month is a lot cheaper than a new game every month).

It's all entertainment. People don't usually buy either product with 'useful' ends in mind--they pay the money to be amused and pass the time. It's their money; it's their time. Sure, they could be giving both to more 'worthy' causes, but so could we all.

Yeah, I could give $15/month to the crack-whore that walks past my apartment every day. Agreed, though, that everyone with disposable income spends some amount of it on entertainment, and that it's rarely useful to do so. I think it's more a measure of how useful the money that's being spent could be. People seem to spend a lot of money on EQ, and yet many of these people seem to be paying just to make their lives miserable.

Re:Div's Happy Hour

[Distinguished Hero]

Why not link to the actual comic instead of writing out the text of the comic and then providing a link to the comic's index page? Here's the comic in all its visual splendor.

Castranova?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ladie's and gentlemen, in the white corner, weighing in at 65 pounds, wet and wearing boots, he's not just a cassanova, he's not just castrated, he's the one, the only .... C A S T R A N O V A !!!

Let's get ready to rumble. Or something.

"Preaching From The Choir"

[Anonymous Coward]

So, a bunch of people who play EQ-type games get together and decide that getting their EQ-type characters messed up is "real damage."

What does the other 99% of the population think?

Re:*NAA is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, thats what I said.

Glad to see you understand.

--penisbird

Re:*NAA is dying

[mxn]

owned

Loss is subjective

[Steeltoe]

In the objective sense, everything happens as-it-is. If something disappears or gets created, it's just an event happening in a world, in this instance the artificial cyberworld of Everquest. In fact, if Verant wishes to, they can easily implement a system of degrading items or having NPC thieves pickpocket you. It's their game, their chose. They even claim no warranty for preserving anything you "gain" in the game in their license you agree to every login. They also have a history of banning people who auction out virtual stuff. It's not real. You pay for the experience of these events, wether you judge them good or bad, not any objects in their world.

It's your choice to play the game, and also how you're gonna handle a setback. Obviously, you have a goal of earning as much level, eq, money, power, respect, whatever, as you can. This goal is also subjective, and varies a from player to player. I won't go into details here about that, that could last for days..

One lesson, as in real life, is that things come and go. There's no real value to material stuff, because in the end THEY WILL ALL GO, including our own body. When you realize this, you can see everything as events with hidden lessons in them and let go of it. This doesn't mean you should never complain to get your character fixed or do anything dogmatic. Nobody can tell you what you MUST do, and rob you of your choice!

It means that in the end, you know you're perfectly safe because you're going to lose Everything anyways.

Re:Loss is subjective

[achurch]

You could say exactly the same thing about the real world, you know. Get your car stolen? That's real loss. Hard drive goes up in smoke (this happened to me two days ago)? That's real loss. In the End, no, nothing matters, but until then--which is subjectively quite a long time!--being pissed is, IMNSHO, a perfectly normal and reasonable reaction.

Re:Loss is subjective

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard drive goes up in smoke (this happened to me two days ago)?

Your own fault! Why on earth did you buy a Seagate?

Re:Loss is subjective

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a smug ass who thinks he's "trolling the trolls"
Well fuck you

whats the point?

[August_zero]

I admit that I play some online games that I end up having to pay for. I play PSO with a few friends and my brother from time to time. I played AC2 for awhile, I am playing in the FFXI beta right now.

But I could never see the justification in buying items with real money. I mean its a freakin game, as soon as it becomes so important to me that I'll spend $100 for an imaginary sword I hope that somebody is kind enough to snuff me out. The "items" one finds in a game are, at most, numbers. I can no more own a magic broad sword +2 vs Nose goblins as i can own the number 7.

People cheating/hacking can disrupt my enjoyment of a game, but its a game. Im not going to press charges against them, im not going to go over to their house and tell their mom. If the host of said game can't keep the miscreants under control than I will quit and find some better use for my money, simple as that.

People are just way too attached to their own self worth. It wouldn't be hard to throw in some arguments about artifical spirituality and psuedo-relegious behaviors associated with online gaming but I am out of scotch

Re:whats the point?

[nsample]

But I could never see the justification in buying items with real money. I mean its a freakin game, as soon as it becomes so important to me that I'll spend $100 for an imaginary sword I hope that somebody is kind enough to snuff me out.

But you're paying the upfront and the monthly fee to PLAY the game already?! Why is it a big leap of logic to then pay a little more for in-game items?

Re:whats the point?

[Evets]

Where did you find magic broad sword +2 vs Nose goblins? I'll trade you for it!

Re:whats the point?

[August_zero]

That would be akin to sitting down with some friends to play a game of "Monopoly" and mid game when Steve has 6 hotels on various properties, I take a 50 out of my wallet and hand it to him in exchange for his property. Its a game, I payed Parker Brothers $30 to own a copy of their real-estate trading game, but I bought it so I could play the game. If I only derive pleasure from owning little red plastic hotels I am missing the point of the exercise.

People don't climb Mt Everest so that they can have a better view, they climb it to climb it. Renting a helicopter to take you to the top is not the same thing even if the results are the same.

Re:whats the point?

[Steeltoe]

Very well spoken!

Hear hear!

Re:whats the point?

[GMontag451]

No, it would be akin to paying someone $50 for a stack of Magic cards. If you had 10 mint Beta Black Lotuses (approx total value: $7000) and someone stole them, would you say "Oh well, it was just a game."? I sure hope not. Now say you have 20 foil Birds of Paradise in Magic:Online (total approx value: $1000) and someone hacks WotC's server and steals them all. Would you say it was just a game then? The line gets blurry, especially when you consider that you have to pay for packs of online cards just like you pay for packs for real cardboard.

Re:whats the point?

[JaredOfEuropa]

"People are just way too attached to their own self worth. It wouldn't be hard to throw in some arguments about artifical spirituality and psuedo-relegious behaviors associated with online gaming but I am out of scotch"

Nope, it's just about money. I haven't paid for in-game items but I can see why some people would. And if I would lose my items because of a hacker, I'd be seriously pissed.

Suppose you own a large virtual house in a desirable location on one of the game worlds of Ultima Online. A hacker steals this house from you. Despite the fact that you may have worked many hours to acquire this house, perhaps you'll just shrug and move on. But how pissed would you be if you found out that your house would have fetched $500 on Ebay? In fact, Ebay is probably where your house will end up: hacking, cheating and scamming virtual items and flogging them on Ebay can earn you a decent income.

Re:whats the point?

[Simon Brooke]

No, it would be akin to paying someone $50 for a stack of Magic cards. If you had 10 mint Beta Black Lotuses (approx total value: $7000)

Reality Alert

These things that you are talking about are small pieces of printed cardboard. Their 'approx total value' does not exceed ten cents. If you paid more for them, that's entirely your problem.

Re:whats the point?

[Troed]

You should draw your comparison even further. Anything has a value if someone else is prepared to pay for it. Our normal currency works that way - we only accept the usage of coloured paper as currency since banks are willing to guarantee their value. Anything can be used as a currency if the same applies - and it need not be banks - it's enough if _someone_ is willing to pay you for the items. Whether they are "virtual", a deck of gards or little bird dropplings is totally irrelevant.

Re:whats the point?

[BenjyD]

Speaking as someone who wasted far too much of his money as a teenager on bits of cardboard (building an evil red/blue direct-damage/jujitsu deck), you're right. However, the number of Magic:TG tournaments with real money prizes can make it worthwhile buying cards if you're good enough.

Re:whats the point?

[GMontag451]

These things that you are talking about are small pieces of printed cardboard. Their 'approx total value' does not exceed ten cents. If you paid more for them, that's entirely your problem.

That stack of $100 bills is just a bunch of cloth paper. The 'approx total value' does not exceed $5. If you paid more for it, thats your problem.

Re:whats the point?

[alexburke]

I can no more own a magic broad sword +2 vs Nose goblins as i can own the number 7

Are nose goblins kinda like underpants gnomes? I'd kill for a magic broadsword with a +2 against underpants gnomes!

Speaking of gnomes, I'd also like a sword with a bonus against the little bastards that keep hiding the keys to my Accord. That'll fix their wagons but good...

Re:whats the point?

[Zeriel]

Sorta like those green sheets of clothy paper in my wallet are worth about ten cents. I wonder why they say "$100" and "$20" on them.

Oh, yeah. Those black lotus cards might be worth ten cents to YOU, but to some people they're worth several hundred dollars apiece.

Sorta like how my green paper with the fancy printing is worth anywhere from $1-$100...my god, they're the same paper, with the same ink, just different designs! Why the disparity in value?

Reality Alert
The 'approx. total value' of ANY object is equivalent to what someone is willing to pay for it, not what you personally feel about it.

Solution

[Julian Morrison]

Require payment of damages - in the game's own virtual currency, "gold pieces" or whatever.

"Real" damages? Are you kidding?

[tgrigsby]

Ok, so let me get this straight. You played a game in which someone cheated. And now someone has to pay you for it? No, you go play a different game. This is covered in kindergarten here in the U.S.; I'm not sure how this particular life lesson is passed on in other countries.

Look, everyone wants to get pissy when someone "wastes time". I spent X hours playing this, and you cheated me out of points/wins/lives/etc. Well, then you just go to the next game. Or you complain to the folks running the game and they sympathize and set you up with the stuff you say you lost. Or they don't because you'd be "wasting their time." And then you go play someone else's game and let them rot with their insecure gaming software. Vote with your participation and watch gaming software quality improve.

But to try to track down and sue someone because they cost you time playing games is severely unrealistic.

It occurs to me that people who see real damages in that situation need to tear themselves away from the computer and join the real world now and then.

As for me.... I'm going to go sue the crap out of that guy that tripped me during the weekend warrior basketball game. Who knew there was money in getting cheated?

Addendum

[achurch]

I only skimmed the middle of your post before replying, so I didn't notice that you also make the comparison to real life. My point was that the hermit life (that's probably a bad way to put it, but nothing else comes to mind at the moment) isn't for all of us; whether good or bad, those of us who do invest time or money in material things, services, whatever, get upset if that investment is put to waste (again, not the best choice of words). That may not be ideal, yes, but it's the way people are, and it would do you well to recognize that even if you don't agree with it.

Re:Addendum

[Steeltoe]

I'm not saying we should abstain from enjoying life, wether we play with things, people or fantasy. In fact, we should really celebrate life. It's great: Superb resolution, realistic sound effects plus some exotic touch-effects! I almost believe I'm really here!!! ;-)

I'm also not saying we should abstain from worry, anxiety, sadness, anger or any emotion. If they come up, just let them. We probably need the release, and blocking it can do more harm.

However, we can be natural and cherish knowledge more. In society there is so much feverishness. People must have this, are envyious of him and long to be with her. It creates alot of suffering, ignorance and superficial relationships.

Yes, I do recognize that losing something or someone you worked hard for, can make you feel miserable. I've been there. However, we also need to recognize that the more hard we think it is, the harder it gets. Again, if it needs to be cried out, fine, no need to play the tough guy. Studying knowledge can alleviate much of the pain and make one learn more from experiences also, so it doesn't have to be repeated again and again.

I agree, people are that way and I accept them all, even people who are labelled "villains". I'm addressing people who are tired of superficial things and seek more meaning in life.

Re:Addendum

[achurch]

In fact, we should really celebrate life. It's great: Superb resolution, realistic sound effects plus some exotic touch-effects!

Damn, where do you get the touch effects? I must need an upgrade... ;-)

Overall, though, I agree with what you're saying, and (to be at least vaguely on topic) I think that the number of people who play online games demonstrates at least to an extent that there are plenty of people not satisfied with the world the way it is--and I think that's why players complain so much when things go wrong in online games; they want the game world to be "better" than the real one in some aspect or another. I'm just not optimistic that we (the general we) can make much improvement in the real world. Maybe I've just spent too long in the bundle of insanity that is the IT industry. <shrug>

Re:Addendum

[Steeltoe]

Damn, where do you get the touch effects? I must need an upgrade... ;-)

Comes with the girlfriend upgrade I got patched half a year ago ;-)
But, seriously. Take a few hours walk in nature and touch all the trees you want! There are lots of interesting things to touch! :-)

Overall, though, I agree with what you're saying, and (to be at least vaguely on topic) I think that the number of people who play online games demonstrates at least to an extent that there are plenty of people not satisfied with the world the way it is--and I think that's why players complain so much when things go wrong in online games; they want the game world to be "better" than the real one in some aspect or another.

Excellent point! Living in fantasy will not bring total fulfillment though, because of inherent limitations. It will always remain an escape from the bigger reality. Inside, there's a little mind fleeing the REAL challenges in its life.

I'm just not optimistic that we (the general we) can make much improvement in the real world.

Are you crazy? There's lots of things to do. In fact, there's so much to do, there's plenty for everyone.. :-) You don't have to save the world, but there's lots of volunteer work you can do, or start some interesting projects. Taking part in the real world, is really much more exciting than playing videogames. You don't do it to save the world, and when finding out it's "impossible" then quit, that's just ego.

Maybe I've just spent too long in the bundle of insanity that is the IT industry.

I like to be part of both worlds. I got tired of just dealing with inhuman computers ALL the time. It's good to be away from them and do something completely different.

yeah, it's loss

[useosx]

First, I imagine the game updates too quickly for them to make backups, so they can't restore your items because they're not going to take your word on it.

Second, if the items and experience are worth real money in the real world, then it is loss (not how EQ money is worth more than the Yen against the dollar).

This is still debatable because it is "just" a game, but the losses are real.

A possible comparison would be if a banks records are hacked and destroyed, do you lose your money? I'm sure they have backups all over the place, but it's a similar concept.

(I'm not an EQ player, either)

Re:yeah, it's loss

[Alex]

"A possible comparison would be if a banks records are hacked and destroyed, do you lose your money? I'm sure they have backups all over the place, but it's a similar concept."

Even if I did my bank is backed by the Bank of England so even if my bank went tits up I'd get my money back. When you enter into a game you make a pledge to play by the rules, if I deposit my real genuine pounds sterling into a bank they guarentee to look after it (and pay me interest ;-)

What do the rules of these games say about this kind of situation?

Alex

power of the market

[useosx]

Can't argue with economics.

Re:"Real" damages? Are you kidding?

[LoztInSpace]

Good point. I wasted 2 hours watching a crappy film at the cinema and was cheated out of enjoyment. For some reason I don't expect my money back. Maybe my kindergarten worked after all.

Both sides' virginity was upheld

[Sagarian]

unanimously

by an undoubtely [poorly] HUNG jury.

Virtual money

[kiddygrinder]

Don't you buy Virtual money everytime you use a bank? Wouldn't you be a little pissed if someone deleted your bank account and said it wasn't real anyways? Obviously this is different, but only because it's not worth as much as 'real money'

Re:Virtual money

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously this is different

Overwhelmingly so. Can you feed yourself with everquest money? Do you need it to live? Can you ruin someone's life by stealing their everquest money? No, no and no.

Re:Virtual money

[theLOUDroom]

Don't you buy Virtual money everytime you use a bank?

Nope. You're not buying anything. You're making a deposit. You still own that money, they're just holding it for you.

Your bank can keep track of how much of your money they have electronically, or on a napkin, but it doesn't change the legal status of the money.

Think about it in terms of a car, instead of money:
You deposit your car at the bank. They keep it, use it, and pay you for its use, but you still own it. If someone erases your car from the banks files, they will still have your physical car. If someone erases your horse in Everquest, there's nothing left. That's because your horse was purely electronic. It was not real. If someone were to zero out the balance in my bank account, that money would still exist. That bank would still have it, they just wouldn't know who it belonged to.

My point is that your money is real property, while your horse in EQ is just numbers in a file (that you don't own) somewhere. It's just part of a game. The owner of that file can legally do whatever he wants to it. He could kill your horse just for fun. You don't own that horse, Sony does. You're paying them to play around in their world. You're subject to whatever agreement(s) you have with them.

Re:Virtual money

[geekoid]

because the numbers in the bank system are backed by real currency. Not to mention the regulations around it which are there so you can use the money without every touching real money.

I could also say, whats the difference between a dollar bill and a pie of paper? the government say the dollar is money.

Which Mods didn't read or check this?

[Anonymous Coward]

... Stanford Law [tubgirl.com] (Weasel). [goatse.cx]

In other words, virtual worlds are just like our world, so, there's nothing particularly interesting about them. Unless they feature nubile anime dickgirls- then they'd be of interest to one Rob "cmdr taco" Malda.

etc

Re:Which Mods didn't read or check this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone has modded the grandparent post up after the parent post was posted. Come on people, when you get mod points please at least take the time to scan for goatse/tubgirl links.

And while I'm on the subject of moderation - when you're metamoderating, always check the context before metamodding anything unfair. That Troll rating may look unfair, but often when you look at the context you'll see threads (like this one) pointing out the not-always-obvious trollishness of the post.

It's kind of like..

[Anonymous Coward]

Monopoly. When I'm playing, and someone steals $100 from the bank, obviously I'm going to take them to court. I mean, come on man.

Analogy?

[fven]

You and some colleagues are working on a document. The largest part of this document is stored on your company's file server. Someone with malicious intent cracks the server and the last weeks work (assuming regular backups here!) is lost.

I think we all agree that this is a real loss. The loss can be quantified in the $time spent by you and your colleages x $wage working on the document plus any loss intrinsic to the data. If the data is stolen rarther than destroyed then damages associated with rival company having internal data etc need factoring in.

But at the end of the day, you do whatever you can (restore from backup, restart work from what you have, possibly seek redress for stolen data, secure systems better in future).

So if the analogy is valid (you and friends have spent hours working on a game), you accept a loss, do whatever you can and then get on with it.

A second way to look at the legal situation here is to use an anthropological viewpoint. What are the native laws in the society (in this case the online one), it may be quite acceptable to steal (thief as an occupation comes to mind, danm those succubi).
It is nearly always wrong to attempt to apply 'our' laws to another society - look historically at all the attempts to enforce new laws and ways of life on indigenous populations.

I guess in summary, look at online RPGs as their own little microcosmic world and accept their minimal effect on our real world.

Re:Analogy?

[nacturation]

It is nearly always wrong to attempt to apply 'our' laws to another society - look historically at all the attempts to enforce new laws and ways of life on indigenous populations.

Thank you, Picard, for pointing out that whenever mankind interferes in a primitive society, the results are invariably disastrous.

Not that suprising to me

[Castaa]

You have to look at the buyers of EQ accounts to get the reasons behind the price differences.

A buyer of a high level EQ account is most likely to be a person that wants a position of power and respect in the game. They want the to be the 'best'. Or near the top anyway.

So much so, that they are willing to pay hundreds of real US dollars for it. This type of player is most likely a male player in real life. Power and sense of being respected (looked up to) is more important to male online gamers. A high percentage of male players (over 80%) play male avatars online. So there is going to be a higher demand for high level male avatars for EQ.

In general, women play EQ for more of a sense of community and social interaction. These goals do not require a female player to purchase a high level EQ account. Also, there are only about 15-20% real life female players in EQ. So even if they were looking to buy an account there would be far fewer female buyers compared to male.

Another interesting demographic is that only 1-2% of female EQ players play as males.

Good source of info on this subject can be found here: http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/

Re:Not that suprising to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood this desire for "power"...

Re:Not that suprising to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a male MMORPG gamer who will always create female characters. Reason: I'd rather look at a female running around the screen than a male all day. It's sexier.

Re:Not that suprising to me

[Saeger]

I've never understood this desire for "power"...

It's rather simple: having power over the environment and other people increases your chances for survival, so over the course of millions of years, those who desired more power - however slight - tended to pass their genes & memes on. The desire to be the successful alpha-male/female is still with us.

--

It's all the same.

[Mr. Self estruct]

You guys.. it doesn't matter... even the FEMALE characters in EverQuest are guys....

Castronova

[Anonymous Coward]

He was my professor for economics a couple of semesters ago! He rocks!

Both sides' virginity was upheld...

[nacturation]

thanks to Viagra!

Excellent analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Didya know that you can't say "Inelegantly sexy confidential squealer" without "excellent analysis of gender inequality"?

Whoaaaaaa...

[Anonymous Coward]

I may be really stoned right now, but even I can tell your post was definitely crack induced.

Double Whoaaaaaa...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, you are definitely smoking too much crack.

Value of entertainment

[TheMidget]

In Germany, people sue travel agents if they think their holiday was less enjoyable than it could be (bad hotel, dirty beach, or sometimes even a late tour bus!), and what's scary: they often win...

And, wasn't their even a case in the US, where the operators of a game show cheated by giving the more handsome candidate advance knowledge of the questions and answers. There was even a movie made of the incident.

And yes, if a movie is really bad, some people do try to demand their money back

So there does indeed seem to be some sue-able value to entertainment.

Re:Value of entertainment

[Steeltoe]

In Germany, people sue travel agents if they think their holiday was less enjoyable than it could be (bad hotel, dirty beach, or sometimes even a late tour bus!), and what's scary: they often win...

People take less responsibility for their own lives now than before. Many unconsciously think that if they can just sue, complain and harass everybody else, everything will be neat and tidy the next time. If just everybody _else_ changes, then it'll "work itself out" somehow. The people around them is to be responsible for their comfort and enjoyment. No "bad" events are permitted, and everything must be inhumanly perfect.

Sometimes, it's best to just suck it in, admit that you made a mistake and learn from it. Everything can't be perfect all the time, and often when it isn't, you can enjoy it even more.

I love you

[Anonymous Coward]

I get a warm feeling inside whenever I see something I wrote ger reposted.
Keep on torllin, sir, keep on troolin.

Too bad for everyone

[Dachannien]

...You all could have gone to see this thing live, except for this:

2003-07-24 18:54:47 Hacker Court: Mock Trial of a MMOG Hacker (articles,doj) (rejected)

Anyway, it doesn't really surprise me that they came up with no decision. It does speak volumes as to how "busy" the American people are, though, that they would attribute value to the time taken to obtain an item garnered from a process that is supposed to be (by design) enjoyable by itself.

Re:Get a life.

[sICE]

Sometimes i think trolling should be modded up ;-)

[OOT][ADV] Tibia

[sICE]

Tibia is a fun and great online rpg for windows/linux with over 10 worlds to play in. Sadly the linux client isnt updated very often, so consider the win32 one anyway :-(. Check it out!

"Real" money are also just virtual

[Inoen]

Has anyone thought abut the fact that "real" money have no value either? They are just symbols of the labour that went into obtaining them.
Their value is in the trust we all have, that we can trade the money for tangible items of real worth.

Just as the game designers can decide to create more of the very rare 20-in-the-world-only item, the people working at the mint can create more coins, notes - money. This would have dire consequences for the national economy - just as it would have dire consequences for the sales of the game.

My point is that virtual money are just as real (or unreal) as real-world money. Both of them are just symbols of value. They are not value in themselves. And yes, both of them can be traded for items with a real value (real in Marx' and Smith's sense).

Now the real world money can be used in more places than virtual money; you can use any currency almost anywhere in the world, if you can find a bank. But you would need to go through the pains of trading on ebay in order to exchange your virtual money to real money or vice versa.

duh

[Kenard]

there's the virtual world and the *physical* world. The term Real World is too narrow.
If you talk to someone in a virtual world you are really talking to them (although "chat" maybe a better word for it). Just what's so not real about the virtual world that the physical one is so much more real? press c, crouch in the virtual world. Bend legs, crouch in the physical world.

Re:"Real" damages? Are you kidding?

[JaredOfEuropa]

"Ok, so let me get this straight. You played a game in which someone cheated. And now someone has to pay you for it? No, you go play a different game. This is covered in kindergarten here in the U.S.; I'm not sure how this particular life lesson is passed on in other countries."

This isn't about cheating, it's about hacking. I think there would be very few people who would think to sue someone who killed and robbed them in-game, or someone who used a clever scam to cheat them out of some money or items. Yes, that is part of the game and part of the reason why people play.

Hacking is another matter. Suppose someome hacked into a few systems and wiped all the prepaid call time off your cellphone account, and all your frequent flyer miles with the airline, and so on. You'd want them back, wouldn't you? Perhaps you and your wife/friend were going to take a vacation to Hawaii with those miles.

If you think that in-game items are worthless as opposed to call time and airmiles, think again. Go look on Ebay: these virtual items can be worth quite a bit, and most in-game currencies have a pretty stable exchange rate to dollars. The reason that these items have value is because they are unstealable in-game pretty much. A smart Ultima Online player keeps most of his gold in the bank, and he can be sure that there is no way that another player can take his house from him. If it could be 'legally' stolen from you in-game, people would not pay such large sums for one. But because players are secure in the knowledge that they'll be able to keep that house, they are willing to pay $500 or more for the privilege of owning one. A hacker destroying or taking virtual property goes outside the rules of the game, and people feel rightly cheated out of items that have a real-world value. Perhaps they even paid real money for these items, and you can bet that the hacker who steals items will flog them on Ebay: to him, the virtual items are certainly worth real money.

Re:"Real" damages? Are you kidding?

[Sven Tuerpe]

This is covered in kindergarten here in the U.S. (...)

You are so right. However, the world will never be the same after mankind discovered ways to sell, buy, and sue each other over ASCII strings used as Internet domain names.

Save Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean my save games (of any game) have value because I put in the time and effort to get to that level? Where does this leave me when an os becomes corrupt and I lose them?

What's the freakin' point?

[Anonymous Coward]

"excellent analysis of gender inequality between male and female Everquest avatars." I can't think of a more pointless thing to study. Is this guy pursuing a doctorate in Rabid Liberalism? Pfffffft!

Re:"Real" damages? Are you kidding?

[PainKilleR-CE]

This isn't about cheating, it's about hacking. I think there would be very few people who would think to sue someone who killed and robbed them in-game, or someone who used a clever scam to cheat them out of some money or items. Yes, that is part of the game and part of the reason why people play.

Hacking is another matter. Suppose someome hacked into a few systems and wiped all the prepaid call time off your cellphone account, and all your frequent flyer miles with the airline, and so on. You'd want them back, wouldn't you? Perhaps you and your wife/friend were going to take a vacation to Hawaii with those miles.

The way I see it is this:
-Action: A player does something in game that's within the realms of the game to harm my character in some way.
-Reaction: Punish that character in the game through the means available to me in the game. If the game has setup some sort of court system to bring this guy into, then do that, otherwise, just go PvP and retaliate, and/or get others to help in this cause.

-Action: A player and/or random person does something outside of the game to affect characters/events inside the game (ie hacking / cracking / whateveryouwanttocallit), depriving people of their characters and items.
-Reaction: the developers should restore order and fix whatever it was that let the person do this, and then decide for themselves whether or not they wish to take real-world action against the person to recover their real-world losses. It is the developers' responsibility to fix the hole that was exploited, and to do as much as possible to restore the damage done in the game (or find a way to fit it into the game), but at the same time, the developers were responsible for the hole being there in the first place, too.

Another note, though: if someone tricks another person into giving them their password (which would presumably allow the person to take the other person's character and/or items), the developers have no responsibility towards that person except to secure their account once they have proven they are the original owner of the account. I realize that some people are a bit sneaky in how they do these things. Similarly, I realize that people are really stupid and fall for these things. However, it is because of both sides existing (stupidity and sneakiness) that I have to stare at this damned warning saying that Blizzard will never ask for your password when I log onto Battle.net, and then 2 seconds later I see someone trawling for passwords.

Does the statute of limitations cover

[curtisk]

Does the statute of limitations cover the "crimes" and "damages" herein? I hope so, as I don't want to be suddenly brought up on charges on some "incidents" that occured during the first year of UO. What kind of penalty does 1st and 2nd degree PKing and looting and dismembering the corpse carry? And I'm a changed man today, but I also made the legs into human jerky and sold and/or ate it, back when that was still possible. I know, I'm ashamed of my criminal past, but I've turned over a new leaf.

What you don't believe me?!?!?! *Vas Ort Flam* *In Nox* *Corp Por* *Corp Por* *Corp Por*

Can you value a virtual loss.

[frode]

Ok I'll grant you being without your +9 vs orges simitar is a loss but what is the value of that loss. Could you have legaly sold the simitar in the real world? In everquest no, so there is no resale loss to you. What is the cost of replacing the item? Nothing, the item is virtual and can be perfectly recreated an infinite number of times.

You could claim being without you +9 Vs orges simitar for a time reduced your enjoyability but the idiot who yells at the screen during a movie reduces yor enjoability as well and what damages can you claim from him.

In short I think the user has a very limited claim on the the craker/exploiter in the online mud world and would have to demonstrate a real loss.

Re:"Real" damages? Are you kidding?

[Remlik]

Ok I'll bite. While I agree with you in most cases lets look at EQ specifically.

I'm paying 13.95 a month to play on Verant/SOL servers. Part of that montly fee could be seen as a promise from Verant/SOL that every single time I log into the game the things I have accuired in game will be there.

Enter A hacker who breakes into their servers (which I'm paying them to maintain) and deletes my stuff.

Now according to you its tough luck on my part and I should just go find a new game. But my wallet is now 14 bucks lighter and Verant/SOL haven't lived up to their promises. I want one of two things, my money back from Verant/SOL or my items back. Its up to them which will cost them more.

If I choose to take my gaming dollars elsewhere AFTER they have made good on their promises thats up to me. But until its free to play on their servers Verant/SOL MUST provide ME the PAYING customer the service I expect and deserve.

gee..

[geekoid]

you went to a place where most of the people play games. And they felt it was a real loss if someone hacked there game. imagine my surprise.

Next up, we got o the golf range to see if golfers feel its a loss if a passing car honks its horn while they try to take a shot.

"excellent analysis of gender inequality between male and female Everquest avatars)"

you keep using that word...I don't think it means what you think it means.

Damn straight

[Anonymous Coward]

the approximate value is what you can get somebody else to give you for something. If some guy at a comic shop says the spiderman comic that some guy paid 2.50 for years ago is worth 10,000 bucks and other people agree than it's worth 10,000 bucks, and i would certainly hope you wouldn't sell it for less.

Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

yanno that guy that everybody around here is paranoid about. He is the one that says whether or not something has "real value" and exactly how much. Until the government places a value on virtual items, which will of course probably never happen, then they have no value. You can spend cash anywhere. You can't even get a big mac with a +2 dagger from the tomb of horrors.

M.D. Inc.

Re:Big Brother

[Zeriel]

Yes, you most certainly can, you just need to find a buyer willing to pay for the dagger in US currency. The Gov't props up the value of some things (like green paper). The value of EVERYTHING is only what people think it is. Witness the valuelessness of the currency of countries with high inflation--the gov't saying the ruble is acceptable currency doesn't make it valuable.

Re:"Real" damages? Are you kidding?

[poot_rootbeer]

You played a game in which someone cheated. And now someone has to pay you for it? No, you go play a different game.

You get mugged on the street in your hometown and your wallet is stolen. Do you go to the police and try to get justice and get your wallet back, or do you just pick up and move to another town?

Opportunity Cost Theory of Value

[Vagary]

IANAE, but what I do remember from micro is that the opportunity cost theory of value was a damn powerful idea: the value of a pair of shears is what you can get for the shears.

This is a relative measure of value, and as long as you can only trade the shears for other virtual items it is very difficult to pin down a specific cost. However controlling a character with shears or some other virtual item is presumably more fun than controlling a character without, so the shears have some entertainment value. (It might be so low as to be unmeasurable, though.)

This makes it sound like opportunity cost is also a subjective measure of value. And, indeed, it is if you cannot trade the shears for something non-virtual. However I've heard that you can sell MMORPG items on eBay for real money, thereby giving the shears a non-virtual value. Money would also have a subjective value, except you can use it to buy things you objectively need, like calories, thereby objectifying it.

So the value of the shears is the amount of real money you can get for transferring their virtual possession. And the value of the real money is the physical needs you can satisfy with it:

1. Shears
2. Money
3. Hookers!

Wow, you are a

[Anonymous Coward]

one of those no TV soapbox standing total dorks aren't you ? I think you'd better re-examine you definition of REAL :)

All you really did was put 9 others out of work by increasing the so-called utility value, you actually DECREASED the value of the work and the person, while generating NO SAVINGS...
Nice corporate mentality, short-sighted, immediate profit driven and totally self destructive....

It depends....

[Anonymous Coward]

...were you playing as a Terrorist or Counter-terrorist?

Re:"Real" damages? Are you kidding?

[Qzukk]

As for me.... I'm going to go sue the crap out of that guy that tripped me during the weekend warrior basketball game.

I hope you're not looking forward to another one of those games... I stole the ball.

But thats OK, right? Basketball is just a game, I mean, sure, you put money into the game by buying the ball, but its still just a game and the fact that you paid is irrelevant. Besides, your basketball should have had GPS and an explosive device which armed if I took it from the court, to prevent me from stealing it. So clearly, because your basketball was not protected it wasn't even worth playing with anyway.

Have a nice day.

Looks like I didn't miss much

[jeremycec]

So let me get this straight. At Black Hat, they released a binary-checking tool which looks like Snake Oil and had a mock trial about a video game?

Dang, it's going to be hard to convince my boss to let me go next year. This year, I was slated to go, but it got nixed because of budget crunch.

Didn't anything good happen?

Hackers court

[Anonymous Coward]

Hackers court was very though provoking. Having been lucky enough to be able to attend it is clear that evidence collection is paramount to sucess.

But the real shocker came from the testimony and not the technical evidence. When I heard one withness say everyone knew each others password that rendered much of the log file evidence suspect as it could have been someone else using his ID. Yet there seemed to be a consensus that Weasel still did it because of circumstantial evidence, namely the use of an undocumented command only those with source code access would know.

Prosecuting hackers has much in common with medical suits, working with a jury who knows little of the interpretation of physical evidence means they must trust experts. And expert opionions and jury views of the people is what court boils down too.

Scary....

Re:"Real" damages? Are you kidding?

[tgrigsby]

Man, you guys sure got fired up. Ok, so each of you has brought up a rebuttal, and most of your rebuttals have the same quality: they're all in the *real world*. So let's review:

1. Those items are data; data can be backed up, data can be restored.

2. In the real world, if you steal my ball, you can be arrested because the ball costs money to replace.

3. I never said the hackers shouldn't be arrested. They committed a crime, sure, but should you get money for virtual tangibles? I don't think so. Their crimes consist of illegal computer access.

4. The sysops can not only give you back your virtual stuff, they can give you a virtual bonus with no additional cost to themselves. And if those items are worth money, as one rebutter (rebuttalist?) pointed out, some of these points/items are worth money on EBay. You not only get your stuff back, you come out a winner. Of course, this depends on how much the game operators want people to use their games. The same can be said about the level of security they provide.

Again, I feel it falls to the game operators to provide a secure setup. Failing to do that, it falls on them to replace your virtual stuff. You can nitpick about the time used to do that, but really it costs them nothing to replace these items.

I think it's silly to pay someone for gaming virtual tangibles that can be replaced in any quantity with little or no cost.

If the game operators want to go after the hackers for breaking, entering, and destroying data, that's a different story, and really the only proper (IMHO) solution.

And I'll say it again: if you still feel that monetary damages should be awarded for destruction of gaming points and objects, you need to get out in the sun and mingle with the populace a little more.