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."

Comments

Copying Currency?

[polyp2000]

Just like the real world, its called forgery. Surely someone needs to invent some rules how to check if a player obtained virtual currency legitimately.

Re:Copying Currency?

[JoeD]

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.

Re:Copying Currency?

[polyp2000]

Well, cant it be done like it is in the real world?

It used to be the case that at any one time the amount of currency equalled that of the value of the gold reserves. I suppose times have changed since then but the system might just as well work. Throw in a stock market algorithm ala Elite (or perhaps more sophisticated one) and maybe people will get a bit more interested in the trade aspects of the game.

Re:Copying Currency?

[Violet Null]

The gold standard isn't a very good idea in the real world. It'd be a piss poor idea in the game world. Allow me to explain:

Let's suppose that there was a fixed amount of money, which is what the gold standard does. Well, it has to be distributed somewhere to begin with, so let's say it's in a vault, and everytime someone kills a monster, the money's taken out of that vault and given to the player.

That's fine, until the vault runs out. After that point, killing a monster gets you no gold. Well, where else are you going to get gold? You could sell items to storekeepers, but eventually they'd run out of money, too. So, you'd have to get it from other players.

But, the supply of gold is fixed. The supply of items is not; more are still created all the time. What's that mean? It means that the value of gold goes up, and the value of items go down (deflation). The longer you hold onto your gold, the more it'll buy.

And don't forget, of course, that this gold would be piling up in the hands of the experienced players and guilds, who could've gotten the money when it was "free". New players who never had that chance would be left out.

Re:Copying Currency?

[UnknownSoldier]

IMAGD & IMAGP (I am a game designer & programmer)

I'm so tired of people bitching about a "broken" game economy, when they don't have a clue what a game designer is all about.

They speak of game balance, as if the game is a zero sum function, when it is not, no matter how hard you try. All MMORPGs, are *designed*, either directly, or indirectly, so that player's wealth gradually increase. How? Because players put their TIME into the game, and the game allows for players to convert their time into game wealth. This is a reason MMORPG tend to follow the instant gratification, and the materialism of "No Risk, No Reward"

So nerf the reward? If there is no reward, what is the incentive to play? It no longer becomes a game in the tradional sense, because what is the goal then? You can't have a game without a goal! True, you can make a game out of ANY situation, but MMORPGs players don't just want a gloried chat sessions -- they want to experience things together with others.

ANY game will have 1 or more of these core principles:

- Creation / Nurture
- Destruction
- Cooperation
- Competition
- Communication
- Exploratin
- Navigation
- Pattern Recognition
- Problem Solving / Strategy
- Organization
- Acquisition
- Trade
- Simulation / Complexity

What does EQ (mainly) focus on?
- Acquisition
- Cooperation
- Communication
- Strategy
- Destruction

By mistakingly thinking "money" is the problem, you're missed the whole point of the "goal" of the game: Acquisition

As I said, you can remove the goal of Acquisition, but you need another goal to take it's place.

Peace

Like Diablo money maker

[superpulpsicle]

Back in the days I remember playing diablo online and someone at a very very high level just started tossing cash at my direction to trade for some weapon he lost battling someone.

The only reason why I figured out he cheated was because the amount of money offered just couldn't fit into my slots.

So watchout, there are as many cheaters online as there are offline.

Multiple-User "Dimension"?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I used them, they called them "Multiple User Dungeons"

GOM is a great idea

[jafuser]

So far, Second Life seems to be their most popular market. I've played with it a little bit; it's kind of fun, and taught me a little about how the bigger commodities markets work.

I think Second Life is doing especially well on OGM because the company that runs the game (Linden Labs) has not only allowed it to be used, but has encouraged SL residents to use it.

One of the things that really turned me on to SL was how open-minded the company is that runs it. It's too bad the other bigger MMO companies are afraid to let their users own the fruits of their "labors", including their currency.

Not like the real world

[cgenman]

The real world has a fixed amount of money (reserve banking not withstanding). For doing what someone with money wants you to do, you recieve a certain reward. The amount of money in circulation is gradually tipped upwards as the population increases, productivity goes up, and old money is accidentally destroyed.

In a standard videogame, closed monetary arrangements are impossible. The players give money to the merchants, who then pay the players to kill monsters? What is the value of an item when nobody wants it? How is the loop closed if items are being generated? At that point you just have massive deflation. Likewise, as players enter or leave the world you have inflation / deflation.

Ok, so you have a closed-loop financial system, a closed-loop item generation and consumption system (that will encourage hording, of course), both of which are keyed to the number of subscribers. Yet special items must still be won, quests must be rewarded. The leveling treadmill will be in effect, but there must be the special blue blade of Nozerath for the adventuring players...

I agree that there needs to be various controls in place, and that developers need to better understand basic economics, but a model of the real world this is not.

Re:Not like the real world

[Carnildo]

The real world has a fixed amount of money (reserve banking not withstanding).

Dead wrong.

The real world has a fixed number of dollar bills and equivalents. The amount of money fluctuates rapidly.

Take a stock certificate. If one share of the stock sells for $25 right now, you would probably accept one share of that stock in payment for something that costs $20. The gap between the worth of the share and the price of the item will cover any broker's fees for selling, and the risk that the stock will go down before you can sell.

How about loans? If I loan you $100,000, with the agreement that, over the life of the loan, the total you'll pay back is $200,000, I could sell that loan to someone else for $200,000. After all, that loan is a promise they'll be paid $200,000 eventually, but until the loan is paid off, that's additional money in circulation that the government didn't print. A credit card is just a variation on a loan, but it also increases the effective amount of money in circulation.

How about playing with time delays in the banking system? Say I write you a check for $100, but I don't have the money in my account to cover it. If, by the time you get around to cashing it, I've been paid, nothing will go wrong, but until then, that's an additional $100 in circulation!

No legal threats

[cgenman]

I'd like to point out the fact that nowhere in the article are legal threats mentioned. Just because an assistant director of legal studies makes an economic argument, doesn't mean that the invisible hand is now under the court's jurisdiction.

A good reason

[TheRealMindChild]

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.

The term "MUDFlation"

[jbensley]

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.