Slashdot Mirror
MUDflation, Legal Action To Hinder MMO Trading?
Thanks to Wired News for its article discussing the pitfalls which may face virtual item and currency trading in MMORPGs. The piece discusses previously covered sites such as the Gaming Open Market, whose founder ruminates on possible issues with TOS violations: "We're getting to the point where we're getting a reasonable amount of attention. I'm sort of afraid that the game companies are going to step in and terminate my accounts because we're violating the terms of service." Another commentator also worries about long-term dangers of virtual item/currency trading, "...because games like Ultima Online and EverQuest have flaws that allow cheaters to duplicate currency, and that ultimately leads to what Hunter calls 'MUDflation,' short for inflation in a multiple-user dimension."
When I used them, they called them "Multiple User Dungeons"
It's not so much that people are duplicating currency all over the place as it is that currency tends to enter the world much much faster than it leaves it.
For example, in Everquest, this is how money enters the world: You kill a monster. That monster drops a junk item and a little bit of cash. You then take the junk item to an NPC merchant and sell that for more cash.
Money leaves the world when you buy things from NPC merchants. Food and water are so cheap that they might as well be free. The only things that really cost money are trade skill items and spell reagents.
The problem is that people kill stuff far far more than they buy things, so money enters the world at a faster rate than it leaves. Eventually, you wind up with tens or even hundreds of thousands of platinum pieces.
What really needs to happen is to somehow balance the game so that cash coming in is balanced by cash going out. If there's too much money in the world, monsters drop less cash, merchants raise prices to suck some out, and lower the prices they give for stuff. If there's too little, do the reverse.
There is a good reason that these companies frown upon trading of virtual goods. First and foremost, they can become both directly and indirectly liable for these goods... they technically are the manufacturer, and retailer of these goods, so in many countries, they would be bound to consumer protection laws. If they eliminate these virtual goods from actually being identified as transferable propertly, then there will be a lot less to worry about.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
You know, I don't remember ever hearing the term 'MUDflation' being used as "inflation in a MUD environment", or for that matter having anything to do with the economics of a particular game.
I was always under the impression that "MUDflation" was the propensity for the items / players / mobs to get more powerful over time in order to keep people interested. "MUDflation" was the reason the level limit in EQ was raised from 50 to 60, and then to 65, and the weapons got significantly more powerful over time as well. Perhaps a side effect is a change in the economy, but the term doesn't describe that.
As far as basing any kind of real economy on a gaming economy, I think it is fundamentally flawed. After all, none of these systems are closed economies in the slightest, currency is simply created at a whim. Do you ever wonder where that orc pawn got his cash from?
Inevitibly the value of currency is going to go down the more is in circulation, whether it be legitimately or through dupes. I don't feel that this guy has a firm grasp on what's really going on, although the article suggests that he expects currency valuations to change.