Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virtual Farming Firsthand

Posted by Zonk on from the a-sad-state-of-affairs dept.

This past weekend we discussed virtual sweatshops, and the legal issues they bring up. Today Terra Nova has a discussion in which Julian Dibbell, noted VW economics researcher, asks do such things really exist? Firsthand experiences would seem to indicate they do, with extensive chat logs (via Broken Toys) and the experiences of players documenting farming behavior.

89 comments

  1. Almost as prevalent by Sparr0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    At one point in time people running macros and scripts (controlling their characters) to produce game-money were almost as prevalent as the sweatshops. Sadly I was stuck on a sub-par internet connection at the time, and not old enough to move out on my own, but I made about $10000/mo for just shy of 8 months running a pair of computers playing Everquest for me while I slept. Today the sweatshops have taken over, but once upon a time it wasnt so.

    1. Re:Almost as prevalent by damiangerous · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You made $80,000 dollars running an EverQuest script while a minor living with your parents? And they STILL wouldn't spring for broadband?

    2. Re:Almost as prevalent by Bagels · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plenty of reasons why it would be hard to get broadband that have nothing to do with his parents' willingness. It wasn't always easy to get good broadband everywhere. Some places were probably stuck with satellite, for example, which stinks for online games (really bad latency, crappy upload because it's tied to dial-up for that part).

      --
      --- Bwah?
    3. Re:Almost as prevalent by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      With 10K a month you can buy a T-1 line pretty much anywhere in the US and still have plenty left over to pay the both the payment and insurance on your Ferrari...

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    4. Re:Almost as prevalent by jayhawk88 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You believed even a word of that?

    5. Re:Almost as prevalent by damiangerous · · Score: 1

      Yes. The part where he said he lived with his parents and played Everquest obsessively.

  2. Even more conspiracy by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I saw one guy on two games: AO and DAOC, selling what amounts to 100 player loads of items. But here's the catch, no one was mature(leveled up) enough to get to the level to sell even 1 player load at the time. Also, everyone else was being banned. So somehow one dude is able to evade detection with his 4 pages of gold selling, while everyone else gets banned within 2 hours of their post. This was about 2 years ago, but there is no doubt in my mind the MMORPG companies were teaming with this guy to sell extra gold. I found out the company would be in the position to make $100,000 a month of the endevour. At the time there was also the philosophy prevailing for companies to spoil the ebay markets by flooding them with loot. I sold lots of stuff in the past, and I have tales of awesomeness and pain. 100$/hr is awesome, losing your apartment, fiancee, and flunking school out because Everquest bans you for selling Asheron Call cheats is pain. But theres degrees within.

    --
    God spoke to me.
    1. Re:Even more conspiracy by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      Heya - mind explaning the Everquestban for AC cheats? And what AC cheats?

    2. Re:Even more conspiracy by realdpk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure that guy wasn't just a AO/DAOC employee trying to catch people in the act of buying?

    3. Re:Even more conspiracy by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      I know it's a grey area, but wouldn't that be entrapment? (Or at least unethical?)

    4. Re:Even more conspiracy by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Unethical perhaps, but if all they're doing is shutting off accounts that are buying farmed goods, they're working within the license agreement. I think they could even file a suit with the information. Entrapment only counts for actions perpetrated by the state, I think.

    5. Re:Even more conspiracy by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      It was the infamous speed hack. I was selling it for AC1 because if you didn't have it, AC1 was virtually unplayable from other characters using it. Basically it was a network hog that sped up one character and slowed everyone else down. It was a really nasty program that worked cross platform. I called up verant on the phone and they shouted,"Criminal!" in the phone and hung up. Looking back, I shouldn't have been selling vicious debilitating cheats, but at the time it seemed like everyone needed to use it or they couldn't play the game at all.

      --
      God spoke to me.
    6. Re:Even more conspiracy by MrScience · · Score: 1

      I would think getting banned would actually lead to the girl, better grades, and an apartment.

      --

      You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

    7. Re:Even more conspiracy by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I know it's a grey area, but wouldn't that be entrapment?

      So what if it's entrapment? Not as if that's illegal!

      Many people believe a myth that entrapment is illegal, but that's just wrong. There is a legal defense of "entrapment" that applies only to police officers, and which is much more specific and limited than what "entrapment" means in the English language.

  3. Heard about this for awhile... by rekenner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    MMO Players have noticed and complained for months because of the game economies being ruined because of the sweat shops and whatnot... Or at least my MMO playing friends have, anyway.

    1. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by ZephyrXero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see both sides of the issue I guess. As a developer...it is important for the game world to have it's own economy independant of the real world. It is essential for virtual economies to exitst.

      But, on the other hand I think that if someone wants to provide a service, they should be able to get paid for it. However, as I don't find fault with people working hard and making real money off of that work... I have a problem with the cheaters who buy all kinds of stuff without having to work for it. If you don't want to really play the game, then don't play it... I say ban the buyers not the sellers.

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    2. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      exactly.

      the buyers, the people who don't want to *play* the game in the first place to get those items should be banned if anyone.

      though, if the devs have come up with a game that has an indeed so boring system for gaining wealth that you'll rather work at mcdonalds for few hours than play it then it really has gone wrong right there.

      the game worlds should be designed so that while designing they would keep it in their mind that the real world exists and they *Can't* isolate the gameworld from it.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it's not boring the problem is that if someone is making a living selling gold they can spend a lot more time farming for it than anyone else can.

    4. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by Drawkcab · · Score: 1

      I don't think the issue is people who would rather work an hour than play the game for an hour. The issue is that people in sweatshop conditions might be making 25 cents an hour, with the final seller making $1 for each hour of their labor. While a Westerner might be making $40 an hour. So would you rather work an hour or play one of the more tedious aspects of the game for 40 hours just to enable you to unlock the interesting bits.

      I'm not saying its a wise investment at any price, since you shouldn't be playing a game you don't enjoy playing for the fun of it. But comparing working to playing at a 1:1 ratio of time is just not representative of whats driving the market for virtual money.

    5. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      it is important for the game world to have it's own economy independant of the real world. It is essential for virtual economies to exitst.

      Why?

    6. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      It is essential for virtual economies to exitst.

      I don't see any justification for that. True, many MMORPG developers state that exact line, but repetition doesn't create truth.

      I suspect that many game designers have a simulationist tendency- they like to create world that are "realistic", or at least self-consistent. It's more satisfying to watch good behavior emerge from a simple set of ground rules than to script in every little detail yourself. (Less effort, too)

      However, looking at existing top MMORPGs from the players' perspective, I don't see how an in-game economy helps them at all. Most players want to explore/quest/fight (mainly fight). And some players like to craft a little, making stuff to sell or use for their party.

      None of that actually requires that players be able to trade arbitrary items for arbitrary game-money. Indeed, there is great precedent for items that are permanently attached to the first player to grab it, so that ownership can never be transferred (although the item can be archived or destroyed)

    7. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      Well, most developers have the opinion that the game should be about more than just fighting. I tried EQ back when it first came out, and it was hack and slash. That is not a "role playing game"....that just an action game with RPG elements. What makes RPGs fun is story (which is hard to pull off in a massively multiplayer evironment) and getting to pretend you are someone else in a world not your own. No one ever played old-fashioned table top D&D just to level up or accumulate gold and items. It is this mentality that is making these games not as fun as they could be. The virtual economy is necissary for this virtual world to be about anything more than just hacking and slashing your way through the next dungeon.

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    8. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      No one ever played old-fashioned table top D&D just to level up or accumulate gold and items.

      No, they do it to win fights. That was the objective of the first D&D game ever played (run by Gary Gygax with variant CHAINMAIL rules). That goal has remained close to the core of most (popular) RPGs ever since.

      No one ever played old-fashioned table top D&D just to level up or accumulate gold and items.

      No one ever played old-fashioned tabletop D&D to play the stock market or trade renewable commodities. (Players who want a game about economics can try Monopoly or Settlers Of Catan)

      The GM isn't sitting there updating a big spreadsheet of the speculative rating for leather skullcap futures in the empire's 6 biggest cities- she (and her players) just don't care. The way that PC customers interact with merchants cannot really cause inflation, revaluation, or any other feature of a real economy . Any economic effects are created by GM specifically to fit the needs of the plot.

      Sure, on occasion PCs in the same party will have a very localized economy as they bargain amoung themselves to exchange magic boots for platinum coins- but once they exchange money with anyone outside the little group, it vanishes into the GM's imagination.

      The virtual economy is necissary for this virtual world to be about anything more than just hacking and slashing your way through the next dungeon.

      No it isn't. How many table top D&D games include an actual economy? Probably zero, and certainly less than 10. (To be an economy, the GM would need to track money and items as they circulate amoung merchants outside the immediate party. That's impossible)

    9. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      You seem to be missing the point. Tabletop games only consist of a handfull of players...not thousands, so of course the economy aspect doesn't matter there...I never said it did. What I did say is that no one plays RPGs for the battle aspect... you play for the story! If you want hack and slash go play Gauntlet Legends or something....

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    10. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      What I did say is that no one plays RPGs for the battle aspect... you play for the story!

      A quick check of the 40 top selling computer RPGs of all times shows that 100% of them focus the gameplay on battle. So... what planet did you say you were living on, again?

    11. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      So just because sells millions of records, you think that actually means they make good music? big sales != good...lol

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    12. Re:Heard about this for awhile... by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      ok, seems slashdot doesn't like me using the less than and greater than signs..... should have been:

      So just because [insert random pop star] sells...

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
  4. Virtual Farming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought this was going to be a story about Harvest Moon.

    1. Re:Virtual Farming? by pat_trick · · Score: 1

      Likewise. As in the newest in manipulating farms from robots or something.

  5. virtual economy... by phUnBalanced · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mean as opposed to the "real" economy?

    The "real" economy went virtual the day we didn't have a value in gold to back the value of ever dollar.

    There's no difference between the economies of a MMORPG or a country. You pay a service to play MMORPG, you pay a tax to live in country. While in that country / MMORPG, you have opportunities to earn local currencies. Why shouldn't you be allowed to convert them? (country lock-in?)

    It bugs me that people (not necessarily parent poster) and developers seem to think users have no rights to this. Developers just don't want other people making money off their game, which is silly if you refer to the tax analogy above. (more farmers, the more monthly income) Players seem to think that anything that can be done for fun shouldn't be desecrated by the concept of economy. Only they don't know when to say when, because they're perfectly happy to take part in economies to sell an item here or there but upset when someone makes this the point of the game for themself.

    Who cares? Ok... now if there are sweat shops, honestly, something needs to be done. Otherwise I say let them farm if they want.

    1. Re:virtual economy... by tahuti · · Score: 1

      How about playing chess, but you can buy of ebay extra pieces that can be used in play?

    2. Re:virtual economy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well in the real economy the goods are real. There are also a lot of other differences between real economies and most virtual ones.

      In the virtual economy, usually goods and currency are introduced into the economy through a chance of dropping every time a monster is killed. The supply of items and currency is determined by how many monsters are being killed. Very valuable items are dropped from monsters that may take twelve hours or more to reappear after they are killed. Currency is much easier to obtain since all monsters drop currency or something that can be exchanged for currency and since lower monsters reappear shortly after they are killed the supply of currency is determined by how much time players are willing to put into farming monsters.

      With the supply of highly desired items being more or less constant having people farming for currency to sell for real money causes severe inflation. Players with currency they farmed using multiple accounts and such or players who bought currency with real money are willing to pay exorbitant prices for valuable items. Other players are left behind and feel frustrated that they have to work to get things they want while others pay real money for them. If this gets bad enough, you'll see players leaving in droves.

      Barring changes to the economic model that these games use, people who farm virtual currency for a living reduce the value of the gameplay for others. Cash farmers tend to drive away more subscriptions than they bring in. I certainly have no intention of playing an MMORPG if the company that runs it is unwilling to do what it can to minimize the number of sales of virtual goods and currency for real currency.

    3. Re:virtual economy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I certainly have no intention of playing an MMORPG if the company that runs it is unwilling to do what it can to minimize the number of sales of virtual goods and currency for real currency.
      And we won't miss you, nitz.
    4. Re:virtual economy... by drxray · · Score: 1

      You don't have a right to convert currencies in the real world. The U.S. could quite easily pass a law making private ownership of foreign currency illegal. And AFAIK people in communist countries don't have any fundamental right to dollars. If MMORPGs are like any kind of country, they're totalitarian oligarchies, with the developers as the rulers. Any "rights" you have within that world are at their discretion, and any rights you have outside it are down to your government, and to an extent the U.N..

      --
      Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
    5. Re:virtual economy... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 3, Informative
      The fact of the matter is, you are paying the game company to use their service. You are agreeing to a contract with their rules in it.

      In other words, you are not entitled to ANYTHING. They can make those rules for whatever reason they want, but as long as you pay them and are under that contract, you play by their rules or you don't play at all. There really is no point in debating this.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    6. Re:virtual economy... by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      People live in a country because they have no choice and they gain things like a police force, health care, etc. People play in an MMORPG because they are paying to be entertained. The company is well within its rights to prevent things which interfere with "real" players' experiences, and the item farmers have no right to screw up the game for their own benefit.

    7. Re:virtual economy... by C0rinthian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's my theory on why game developers will NEVER support this.

      Liability.

      If they endorse sales of items and currency, they agree that said items and currency have real world value. Since they agree to this value, then they could be held liable for losses incurred because of server issues, balancing, database rollbacks, etc.

      Imagine Johnny's $100 Mace o' Doom gets nerfed in a patch and is only worth $10 because of it. He could make a claim that he should be compensated for his loss.

      Imagine a database roll-back on 500,000 characters.....

    8. Re:virtual economy... by dasunt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The "real" economy went virtual the day we didn't have a value in gold to back the value of ever dollar.

      Gold has as much inert value as giant stone wheels.

      The value of gold can (and does) fluctuate in regards to other goods, as a minute's worth of research would show.

      Money is the concept to use a scarce good as a medium of exchange, nothing more, nothing less.

      Historically, gold has been useful as a currency, due to its rarity, but there are some problems with gold: The supply of gold tends to be fixed. The size of economies fluctuate. This leads to problems. (Of course, I tend to worship at the altar of Keynes, so I might be biased.)

      Fiat money has a few advantages that gold does not, the major one is that the quantity of fiat money can be expanded and contracted as need requires, leading to a more stable economy.

    9. Re:virtual economy... by NSash · · Score: 1

      Don't pretend that there is any large element of skill in MMORPGs. Achieving your goals just by logging enough hours (which you pay for) is no nobler than cutting out the wasted step and buying the end product directly.

    10. Re:virtual economy... by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

      Liability, Liability, Liability. If the in game items have value in the real world, they could be held responsible for losses despite the service agreement disclaimers. In the real world, you can't sue God if an asteroid flattens your house.

    11. Re:virtual economy... by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Gawd!

      What is it with gold nuts? Backing currency with gold means that whatever gold is worth, so is the piece of paper in your hand. You could back it with sheep if you wanted, or triangular rubber pieces 10,000 miles to a side, or cling-wrap. It's all the same. Fiat money (which most currencies are these days) is implicitly backed by the future taxation power of the government. If the government's taxation power goes down (civil unrest is a really good way to do this, government debauchery is another) then you get inflation as the relative value of that promise and all other goods changes. But you get the same situation if you happen to increase the supply of gold (the discovery of the New World was a good source of inflation).

      Gold is no more special than any other backing.

      And, to bring this back into the thread, virtual currency is backed by the trustworthiness of the game creators providing services (entertainment) in exchange for that currency. Depending on your government, you may rate virtual currencies as more or less valuable than real currencies. However, there is one aspect in which real currencies are better than virtual ones - you are legally obligated to accept them in payment for debts incurred. Just try going into a corner store and buying a slushie with some EverQuest gold.

    12. Re:virtual economy... by patio11 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Here are four reasons why developers would rationally want to avoid monetizing their gold supply:

      1. Establishing an equivalency between real world currency and gold/Archmages Robes of the Eagle/Swords of P0wning invites real world courts and governments to see gold/robes/swords as tangible property. This would lead to a couple of things: taxes, first of all. If every time Onyxia gets capped $150 of virtual goods spawns in Irvine California, sooner or later the CA IRS is going to wonder "Say, where are our income taxes from independent contractor Onyxia?" How long do you think any taxman is going to let a multi-million a year revenue stream go uncounted? Second, if I *own* my little 30 kb that describes the state of my WoW character and Blizzard decides to nerf my Sword of P0wning I could theoretically sue them for taking away my property interest in the Sword. Currently, their EULA protects them (they say its ALL their IP), but if they allow the IP to be bought and sold they can no more expropriate the goodness of my sword than my ISP can arbitrarily delete content off my professional website.

      2. More farmers might mean more monthly income, but the developers will never see a penny of it. It just means there is more gold/items floating in the game than they planned for, possibly bursting their sinks, and thats a problem. For one, it will impoverish non-farming players, because as inflation increases the price of finished goods/endgame content the price of "vendor trash", coin, and static quest rewards will not increase, seeing a drop in the virtual "real wealth" of the casual players -- who aren't going to pay $15 a month just to be lvl 40 Serfs.

      3. Some players are morally offended by the idea that their "fun" is being corrupted, and regardless of whether you think they're hypocrites, off balance, or whatever, their $15 a month is as green as everyone else's and they will gladly take it elsewhere. Most developers think that this segment of their playerbase buys more months of service than the "farming community", and they're likely correct.

      4. Buying upper-level content means content gets exhausted faster, which could increase the churn rate of the same very interested customers the developers are most happy to keep in the system (both because they typically play games for a long time and because they provide structure to the playerbase via guilds/etc, increasing newbie retention and generating "content" for other players via social interaction, guild rivalries, etc).

      --
      Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
    13. Re:virtual economy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "any rights you have [in the real world] are down to your government..."

      That's a grim world you live in if you think your rights only exist at the discretion of a bunch politicians and bureaucrats. My rights are inalienable and they exist because I am a human being, regardless of what any other person or organization says.

      Governments don't grant rights, they simply recognize them (or don't recognize them) as the situation suits those in power. Your constitution (assuming you're American) even acknowledges as much.

    14. Re:virtual economy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Here's my theory on why game developers will NEVER support this. Liability."

      That's an interesting comment, and anything is possible under the US's bizarre legal system. However, I'm sure this could easily be avoided as long as the game company states up front that they can alter the game and its items in any way at their own discretion, and that they are under no obligation to guarantee the monetary value of any virtual game items.

    15. Re:virtual economy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recognize that you're fairly savvy when it comes to economics, dasunt, but let me respectfully provide some counterpoints. :)

      "Gold has as much inert value as giant stone wheels."

      Perhaps in a purely subjective sense. But as far as human society is concerned, gold has a great deal of intrinsic value. It has valuable industrial uses, it does not tarnish, and it's been highly prized as jewellery for millennia.

      "The value of gold can (and does) fluctuate in regards to other goods, as a minute's worth of research would show."

      In the short run, it does. In fact, all goods fluctuate in regards to each other and to currencies. But in the long run, gold is remarkably stable. A man who owns an ounce of gold today can buy roughly the same amount of goods as someone who owned an ounce of gold 500 years ago. That cannot be said of *any* fiat currency that has ever existed.

      "Money is the concept to use a scarce good as a medium of exchange, nothing more, nothing less."

      Strictly speaking, "currency" suits that definition better than "money". Money is a store of wealth as well as a medium of exchange. Currency is only a medium of exchange. I cannot eat a dollar bill, sew a shirt with it, or use it to till a field; mere currency holds no value other than the expectation that someone will give me something real for it later on. I understand that the semantics of these terms have been muddied in recent decades.

      "Historically, gold has been useful as a currency, due to its rarity, but there are some problems with gold: The supply of gold tends to be fixed. The size of economies fluctuate. This leads to problems."

      In theory, perhaps. However, if the growth of other wealth outpaces the increase of the gold supply, the price of goods as measured in gold will simply be adjusted downward - making gold even more useful as a currency, since one needs to carry less around. What's more, the free market is perfectly capable of adopting other commodities as currencies; currencies used by different places in the past have included metals (gold, silver, platinum), gems, salt, and even tobacco.

      Real commodities are preferable to pieces of scrip as currency, since they have intrinsic value, don't rely on psychology, and can't be inflated or manipulated by corrupt politicians.

      "(Of course, I tend to worship at the altar of Keynes, so I might be biased.)"

      And I bow to von Mises, as you might have gathered. :)

      "Fiat money has a few advantages that gold does not, the major one is that the quantity of fiat money can be expanded and contracted as need requires, leading to a more stable economy."

      Some economists consider that to be its greatest drawback. Currency manipulation does not make the economy more stable. It simply creates artificial credit booms which must be corrected with the liquidation of misallocated capital - the so-called "business cycle". Monetary expansion also rewards those who get the new money first, before inflation occurs, and penalizes those who get it later (or not at all).

      Can I make this relevant to online RPGs and "virtual farming"? I'll try. So long as game currency is a virtual good that can be created and destroyed at whim, game companies will always have difficulty keeping the economy in balance; what's more, people will always find ways to make money that the game designers did not anticipate, and many will do whatever they can to turn virtual earnings into real-life wealth.

    16. Re:virtual economy... by Jerf · · Score: 1

      but if they allow the IP to be bought and sold they can no more expropriate the goodness of my sword than my ISP can arbitrarily delete content off my professional website.

      While an interesting discussion, I can't think of any current class of "intellectual property" that your character would fall under. (Remember, there is no such thing as "intellectual property", it's a grouping term, and discussion like this is exactly why it is important to remember this!)

      It clearly isn't trademarkable or patentable. It fails the creativity criterion for copyrightability; your database records simply describe your character. (Your name might conceivably be protectable, or if your character were allowed to carry novels that you wrote around, but the mere numbers describing your character are not copyrightable.) The last category would be trade secret, which would be, I believe, flimsy at best, although perhaps not completely impossible, but that wouldn't apply to the transfers being made, where the buyer and the seller are never in possession of the secret parts of those numbers.

      I don't think there is any "IP" at work here in the legal sense, so the EULA is all you've got. (Incidentally, when they claim IP rights in the EULA, they're talking about their art, sounds, etc., not your character data, which I'm sure they claim but at least legally I don't think it's "IP".)

      Some players are morally offended by the idea that their "fun" is being corrupted, and regardless of whether you think they're hypocrites, off balance, or whatever, their $15 a month is as green as everyone else's and they will gladly take it elsewhere.

      That is a point that bears repeating, so I did. :-)

    17. Re:virtual economy... by demi · · Score: 1

      To extend the taxes argument--it's clear that if you can "win" or "lose" the game and get money for it, it's gambling. That's not legal everywhere, and where it is, the government takes their cut.

      --
      demi
    18. Re:virtual economy... by dasunt · · Score: 4, Insightful
      In the short run, it does. In fact, all goods fluctuate in regards to each other and to currencies. But in the long run, gold is remarkably stable. A man who owns an ounce of gold today can buy roughly the same amount of goods as someone who owned an ounce of gold 500 years ago. That cannot be said of *any* fiat currency that has ever existed.

      You need to pay attention to your history lessons.

      The value of gold has fluctuated historically, over the long term. Different societies valued it differently. One often-cited example is gold and silver in the east and west: During the 1700s, the Far East wanted silver, while Europe wanted gold -- the result was that silver flowed out of Europe and gold flowed out of east Asia.

      Also, you need to pay more attention to your economics.

      Gold doesn't buy the same amount of goods now that it does 500 years ago because the value of other goods fluctuate.

      If you are advocating gold for economic stability, it doesn't allow the same 'tricks' that fiat money does, and I feel that weakens the economy.

      If you are advocating gold for a measure of value after the US crashes and burns, taking the rest of the world with it, I humbly suggest that bullets, books and medicines may be more valuable.

      Of course, I could be wrong. Greenspan disagrees with me as well. :)

    19. Re:virtual economy... by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then why are high-level eBayed characters so easily detected by other players? No, wait, I'll answer that for you - it's because the purchaser of the eBayed character lacks the skills to back up the gear and experience possessed by the character. These skills are obtained naturally by spending time learning the game through levelling up one's own character.

    20. Re:virtual economy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Gold has as much inert value..."
      I think the word you were looking for was inherent.

      your comments are otherwise thought provoking

      And I love iRate radio.

      Have a nice day

    21. Re:virtual economy... by servognome · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "real" economy went virtual the day we didn't have a value in gold to back the value of ever dollar.
      No the "real" economy went virtual when we went away from direct barter. Gold, like paper money, is an arbitrary form of wealth measurement, it has no inherent value. Its use as a means of virtualizing wealth relies solely on its ability to be accepted, rare, and hard to counterfeit; same as paper money.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    22. Re:virtual economy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The value of gold can (and does) fluctuate in regards to other goods, as a minute's worth of research would show.

      Maybe you should take a minute and do a little research, as you obviously slept through the portion of econ101 that discussed the gold standard. When the US was using the gold standard, gold had a fixed price, with very few, and very minor adjustments. Check the link http://www.finfacts.com/Private/curency/goldmarket price.htm That is how a standard works (like pounds sterling). You set the value of the commodity, and issue paper to represent a physical amount of said commodity. That is what creates the stability, you can use either the physical or the representative currency, but in no cases can the paper "chits" that are issued represent more than the physical deposits backing the currency, since at any time you can ask the treasury to convert your "chits" into physical property.

      Fiat money has a few advantages that gold does not, the major one is that the quantity of fiat money can be expanded and contracted as need requires, leading to a more stable economy.

      Are you sure about that? One of the symptoms of an economy that is falling to shit, is the printing of more money. Ask a pre or post WWII german about overprinted worthless currency, or anyone from Argentina in the 80's (ever had a bank note in your pocket with more than 6 zeros on it, and yet you still can not buy a coffee with it?), or maybe a Russian with worthless Rubles. Or wait and ask any American in 10 years. The biggest failing of a fiat curreny is the ability to just run the presses 24/7 until you have the amount of money you want. Of course, the government wants you to believe that just printing money brings stability, when in fact they are ensuring that your fiat money has no real value at all. It is only worth what the next owner of it says its worth. Have you noticed the international movement AWAY from the US dollar? A big part of that is people have no faith that the currency can survive long term, as the treasury just keeps printing more and more, to make up for deficits.

      Most of your comments regarding monetary policy are not too far off, but you have obviously been fed a spin that promotes the "It's OK to print currency until it is useless" point of view. One that has proven time and time again to be absolute bullshit.

    23. Re:virtual economy... by DerWulf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The virtual goods have value attached to them regardless of the game companies recognizing them. The evidence is clear on this: ask players if he prefered to keep the items he has or loose them with no compensation. If only one of them opts to keep, the goods are actually valuable. But this is unecessary since ebay auction not only proove that people attach value to those things but also establish a price. Whenever there is a price there must be value.

      The liability issues you mention probably come down to what is in the service contract. If nothing is there, the courts must decide the property status of such 'virtual' valuables.
      On a side note: common property law is not a tool to preserve the market exchange rate (price) for ones possesion. Property rights only preserve the physical integrity of your property. In example: while it is valid to sue operators of a plant that opens near by because they pollute your grounds, it is futile to sue them because your estate has become worthless since no one wants to move in next to a factory.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    24. Re:virtual economy... by DerWulf · · Score: 0

      yes, but whereas the increase in gold supply has positive effects like lots of people being able to afford more nice shiny stuff, government inflation is the promise of higher taxes and by extension of bigger government meaning less liberty peace and prosperety.
      Also, increasing the gold supply at one moment in time by 2% is actually hard work like diging lots of holes or conquering yet undiscovered continents. My point being: its not a decision. Nowadays the govenment can expand money at will and thus increase its spending power at will. Not only that but initialy the market prices are reflecting the current ration of dollars vs goods meaning that the new money actually buys more stuff than it should be. In every way, you and me always get the short end of the stick with fiat money.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    25. Re:virtual economy... by DerWulf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      what do you think gold economies are? They are, in fact, direct barter economies.

      And there is nothing abitrary about gold (unlike paper money). The following properties make gold uniquely suitable as money:
      - durability (it doesn't spoil, rust, break or tear, unlike paper )
      - low weight (in relation to the other goods on the market, there is relativly few gold to go around, unlike paper)
      - divisibility (gold does not have to be treated as a unit (unlike cars ie.), many small pieces are almost exaclty as useful as one larger piece, unlike paper)
      - impossible to counterfeit ( as you noted, but I disagree that any paper money is)

      - stable supply (very unlike paper)
      - gold is a commodity serving real life purposes.

      These factors combined increase its utility to a point where it was natural for people across the globe to accept gold as a universal medium of exchange. Paper money works differently: It must and always has been forced onto the populance. So the direction is reversed; universal (forced) acceptance preceded the little utility it has now. And the problems resulting from this are not to be ignored. Whereas drastic inflation of the gold supply only happend once in 5000 years, a lone mad statesman is enough to create inflation rates near infinity wreaking havoc on the economy. Also, don't underestimate the inflation tax. Realize that if you store 100 dollars in cash over 50 years, those 100 dollars won't buy you near the amount of goods you could have bought initially.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    26. Re:virtual economy... by Reapman · · Score: 1

      True... with one itty bitty difference.. mmo's are A GAME... therefore when you have situations where you cannot get the monster that you want / need to continue playing becuase the gold/gil seller's lively hood depends on it... uh thats no longer a game. MMO's are "vritual worlds" in some respects but when you break it down, they exist to make money for the devloper and to provide entertainment for the gamer. Having people make money off of it destroys that.

    27. Re:virtual economy... by Metapsyborg · · Score: 1
      And there is nothing abitrary about gold (unlike paper money). The following properties make gold uniquely suitable as money:
      - durability (it doesn't spoil, rust, break or tear, unlike paper )
      - low weight (in relation to the other goods on the market, there is relativly few gold to go around, unlike paper)
      - divisibility (gold does not have to be treated as a unit (unlike cars ie.), many small pieces are almost exaclty as useful as one larger piece, unlike paper)
      - impossible to counterfeit ( as you noted, but I disagree that any paper money is)
      - stable supply (very unlike paper)
      - gold is a commodity serving real life purposes.

      None of those things really matter; it's still an arbitrary decision made by a society to value something that has no intrinsic value.

      Durability: yeah, and paper is the only thing anyone makes currency out of...coins, shells, etc are all durable; you don't have to worry about them breaking.
      Low Weight: clearly paper wins here, but coins and other forms of currency are also low weight.
      Divisibility: while it is true that coins, paper and other currencies cannot be split to make smaller amounts, they can be created in small enough values that you do not need to divide them (get rid of pennies, please!).
      Impossible to counterfit: yes, it is more likely that paper currency could be counterfited before gold, but is it that implausible to think that gold could be created through scientific processes someday soon? We already create diamonds. And how do you know that someone hasn't melted that gold down and mixed in 5-15% of a similar metal? Are you going to pull out your gold tester everytime you make a transaction? You could, but then someone could put a tasty lead center in each of their gold bars; with a little bit of math and weighing of things, you could figure out the right amount to put in the middle without throwing off the weight of the actual bar.
      Stable supply: no, I don't think so. It has a limited supply, but that does not make it stable. What if a corporation found thousands of tons of gold on a deep earth expedition? Or what about other planets? Diamonds have an artificial economy--we can make them, but the diamond companies won't allow those to be sold because it would destroy their profits. They limit the amount of diamonds that can be sold each year. I'm sure that a similar situation does/will occur the more gold is introduced to the world.
      gold is a commodity serving real life purposes. This one's really funny. I'll be laughing my ass off after the apocalypse when you're trying to plow your field with a gold plow, or trying to trade for food with useless gold jewelry; while I'm growing food with my steel/stone plow, trading food for commodities, etc. Please show me the "real life purpose" of gold. It's nothing more than an extravagence and status symbol, with no real worth outside of what a society places on it (hmm, sounds like currency...). If aliens come to earth, they're not gonna give a wit about chunks of heavy, dense metal; gold has no objective value.

      Rare shells, rare metals other than gold, uniquely crafted items (be they paper, metal, or some other material), generally any item that can be forced to have a limited availability (human created or otherwise) fits these criteria.

      PS: Wasn't the Depression in part caused by the gold standard, and the inability of the Federal reserve to pay out on all the people wanting to cash their currency in for the gold that it was "worth"? Unless you proposing using actual gold coins (which have other problems such as shaving and counterfiting) you are going to face many problems (population growth and economic growth necessitates more currency, but if it is so limited where's it gonna come from?).

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^) INFECTED
      (")")
    28. Re:virtual economy... by JavaLord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some players are morally offended by the idea that their "fun" is being corrupted, and regardless of whether you think they're hypocrites, off balance, or whatever, their $15 a month is as green as everyone else's and they will gladly take it elsewhere. Most developers think that this segment of their playerbase buys more months of service than the "farming community", and they're likely correct.

      Yeah but the funny part is this segment of their playerbase is often a part of guilds/clans who screw the economy up and screw solo'ers time up by giving insane amounts of gold/items to their low level guildmates. I've run into people in World of Warcraft who were decked out in equipment and bragged about having 5GP's at level 10. I of course asked how they got it, and I got "My guildmate gave it to me!"

      I don't see any way to prevent people from having their "fun" corrupted. The people buying on E-Bay are no different from the ones who get good equipment/gold from their clanmates at low levels.

    29. Re:virtual economy... by brkello · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you are missing a key part. The people and groups who are earning a living off of these games are ruining the games for others. They are camping the best items or are agressively taking spots that will earn them money. You are right that if some guy sells some of his stuff it's no big deal. It's the people who do it for a living that skew the economy and make it difficult for others who just want to play the game. So, to answer your rhetoric question of "who cares?" lots of people do. While identifying that this is a problem is easy, finding a solution for it is very complex.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    30. Re:virtual economy... by servognome · · Score: 1

      what do you think gold economies are? They are, in fact, direct barter economies.
      No it is a virtual economy. Direct barter means I give you a cow for a bushel of wheat. However, that system is complicated if you don't want a cow. What virtual economies do is allow indirect trade, and improved valuation. I don't have to trade you a cow, I can trade that cow to somebody else for "economic units" which you would be willing to accept in exchange for the goods you sell. The "economic unit" could be anything gems, gold, sea shells, money, etc. The unit itself is not what is important, but rather the fact everybody agrees upon what it represents.
      - durability (it doesn't spoil, rust, break or tear, unlike paper )
      Yes gold is more durable, but is paper money really that fragile? It is relatively rugged, sure it won't last thousands of years, but do I really need it to?
      - low weight (in relation to the other goods on the market, there is relativly few gold to go around, unlike paper)
      True that is why it was chosen as an economic unit for thousands of years
      divisibility (gold does not have to be treated as a unit (unlike cars ie.), many small pieces are almost exaclty as useful as one larger piece, unlike paper)
      Yes and no. There is a reason why gold (and other precious metals) were minted by goverments into coins. Through minting you were assured of an exact level of weight and value. This prevents disagreements based on difference in weighing (store to store, and person to store variation).
      Also the claim of dividing in a real time manner doesn't work in practice. Technically if you have a $2 gold coin and want to buy something for $1 you could cut the $2 coin in half. In practice it doesn't work because the level of accuracy required.
      Same as paper money, gold money was exchanged in specific units.
      - impossible to counterfeit ( as you noted, but I disagree that any paper money is)
      I would agree that it is probably easier to counterfeit paper money than gold, though gold is not 100% safe. People used to not trust gold until the advent of the touchstone, which allowed detection of counterfeit or low gold containing alloys. I'm sure there are more advanced counterfeits and more advanced detection techniques. Just as in paper money there would be a battle of better counterfeits vs. better detection.
      stable supply (very unlike paper)
      Actually paper provides a much better method of controlling money supply given a stable goverment and economy. You can more easily increase or tighten the money supply with paper money than you can with gold.
      True a madman in power can wreck things, but they can do it through other forms as well. Paper economies also, don't have to worry about single companies (not beholdent to goverment) controlling the supply of gold (ala DeBeers and diamonds).
      - gold is a commodity serving real life purposes.
      True, but its actual application is typically limited to jewelry, electronics, etc. By tying an economy to a commodity that has other applications, you in turn tie the economy to those other applications. If there is an explosion in electronics and demand for gold increases, you run into deflationary pressures which could damage the overall economy.
      Whereas drastic inflation of the gold supply only happend once in 5000 years, a lone mad statesman is enough to create inflation rates near infinity wreaking havoc on the economy. Also, don't underestimate the inflation tax. Realize that if you store 100 dollars in cash over 50 years, those 100 dollars won't buy you near the amount of goods you could have bought initially.
      The problem if gold was used as currency is could the supply of gold meet the demand of an ever increasing population? Unless the supply of gold can rise to meet the level of demand which grows exponentially, you run into deflation (too many people need too few gold), which is worse than inflation; or you run into the need to go to an alter

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    31. Re:virtual economy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please show me the "real life purpose" of gold.

      Gold is a commodity with real industrial value. Aside from uses in chemistry, it is used in electronics and other applications where chemical durabililty is needed (ie gold doesn't rust or tarnish).

      Diamonds also have industrial value in cutting tools and anti-wear coatings.

      The fact that many people think gold & diamonds are pretty doesn't change the fact that they have real value.

    32. Re:virtual economy... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The virtual goods have value attached to them regardless of the game companies recognizing them.

      No, no they don't. If Blizzard goes out of business and WoW goes offline, then I don't care if I have 10 gold or 10 billion.

      The evidence is clear on this: ask players if he prefered to keep the items he has or loose them with no compensation. If only one of them opts to keep, the goods are actually valuable. But this is unecessary since ebay auction not only proove that people attach value

      Wrong. That evidence, even if true, proves nothing.
      1) The main reason the player wants to keep it is because he's unsure if the game company has really decided to permanently stop recognizing it, or will make the item useful again in the future. Generally, if you ask if a player wants to keep the item, he will answer assuming the game will continue to recognize it. (If the company does not, then I'd argue he isn't really keeping the item at all.)

      2) Even in the rare case that the player truely believed the company would never make the item useful again, it still retains some sliver of sentimental value- like the cashed paycheck from your first job- but still, the economic meaning has been destroyed.

    33. Re:virtual economy... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      To extend the taxes argument--it's clear that if you can "win" or "lose" the game and get money for it, it's gambling.

      Wrong. Gambling is based mainly on random probability, and is often illegal (unless the government is running it). Games of skill are separate, which is why gambling in poker is legal in many, many more places than blackjack- the skill component is so much higher.

      Furthermore, you're wrong because in many USA states, gambling of all kinds isn't illegal at all. For example, in New York gambling is totally legal, but possession of gambling equipment is outlawed.

    34. Re:virtual economy... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Achieving your goals just by logging enough hours (which you pay for) is no nobler than cutting out the wasted step and buying the end product directly.

      That's why economically rational game companies must try to prevent gil-farming (to use the FFXI-specific term). They're selling an experience, and revealing that there's a shortcut to the endpoint removes the fun, and will cost customers.

      Imagine how profitable a casino would be if they just gave you a number at the door and just instantly gave you 94.3% of whatever money you gave them. Its more honest, and require less investment from them as a business, but without the mystique and pagentry of gambling, nobody will pay for it.

      MMORPGs, like casino gambling, is a businessm model dependent on the customer's willingly ignoring what's really going on. Gil-sellers threaten to pull back that curtain, and reveal the time-sink straighaway. Some potential customers won't even bother to play- others will spend $50 for a high level character, play for 2 months, and then quit feeling they've experienced the whole game in less time.

      If those dangers didn't exist, then you can be sure game companies would be in the gil-selling business themselves- as they can obviously undercut the business of anyone who actually needs to play to earn gil, but simply punch numbers into the database.

    35. Re:virtual economy... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The U.S. could quite easily pass a law making private ownership of foreign currency illegal.

      That wouldn't be "easy", as it would require passing a Constitutional Amendment to revoke the existing Fifth Amendment. So USA citizens enjoy that right exactly as strongly as the do any other right.

    36. Re:virtual economy... by drxray · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that's very interesting. I'm not a U.S. citzen so I'm not up on its constitution.

      After thinking about this I'm not sure it applies. Your argument is that declaring foreign currency illegal is effectively confiscating property from citizens. But this happens every time something is declared illegal, people who have been legally dealing in it now have a warehouse of worthless, illegal goods.
      Besides, the constitution can be changed. You're right, perhaps not "easily", but it is within the power of the government.

      --
      Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
    37. Re:virtual economy... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I'm not a U.S. citzen so I'm not up on its constitution.

      Most all constitutions have a line like that. "Life, Liberty, Property" is almost a standard boilerplate. The UN also declares them as human rights.

      But this happens every time something is declared illegal,

      That happens pretty rarely (except with synthetic drugs), and there are mitigating factors: The ban is always pre-announced, so existing owners have a chance to sell it out of the country first. And there is often a "grandfather clause", where quantities of the banned material already present are allowed to remain, although no new ones can be produced.

      That applies to machine-guns in the USA, for example. You can't buy new ones, but you can keep ones you have.

      PS. As a side note, whenever the USA Congress extends the length of copyright terms, they are illegally depriving the public of property- by the same argument.

    38. Re:virtual economy... by demi · · Score: 1

      You say I'm wrong, yet you go on to support everything I say. You agree that gambling isn't legal everywhere, and you agree that gambling includes games where skill and chance are mixed.

      Why are you arguing again?

      --
      demi
    39. Re:virtual economy... by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      WOW! That's a very good point I failed to make earlier. Yes, people giving newb characters gold and whatnot does often askew the game unfairly as well, But... it's harder to justify or implement the outlawing of something like that. Should we get rid of Guilds 'cause they make it unfair to single-player types? Nah... but, perhaps some sort of restrictions on how much gold can be given or what kind of items can be given by what class??? Very interesting....I will have to think on this alot more now.... ;) Sorry for the rambling incoherent post :P

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    40. Re:virtual economy... by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      you can't seperate 'sentimental' value and economic value. They are identical. The mistake you make is to assume that things have value in themselves. This is not correct at all. Value must always be subjective, therefore everything that someone does value indeed has value. Saying that the in game items are not valueable to the player (with the properties they possed when he first aquired them) is absurd.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    41. Re:virtual economy... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The mistake you make is to assume that things have value in themselves.

      No, it turns out my mistake was to take your words at face value.

      Saying that the in game items are not valueable to the player (with the properties they possed when he first aquired them) is absurd.

      Correct, it is truely absurd. But if you know that, then why did you claim otherwise:

      The virtual goods have value attached to them regardless of the game companies recognizing them.

      The game items only possess properties because the game company recognizes them. If I secretly download a copy of the FFXII server, edit a character to have 50 billion gil, and try to sell it to you on a CD-R, it won't have value, because the game company won't recognize the item.

      Based on other (spelling) errors you've made, I suspect that your English language rank is low enough that you don't understand the meaning of the words you actually wrote. Prehaps you had intended the sentence to end with "it" instead of "them", which completely changes the parsing.

      "It" is singular, and refers to "value" (the most-recently referenced singular noun). "Them" is plural, and refers to the most recent plural noun, "items". Items having value if the company doesn't recognize the value makes sense; but if the company doesn't recognize the item, then it naturally has almost no value.

    42. Re:virtual economy... by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I should have used 'it'. Now it seems obvious.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    43. Re:virtual economy... by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      actually its not only an issue of english rank. It just occured to me that the same sentence in german would also require the singular to make the sense I intended. So we're talking about my deficient general grammar rank ;)

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
  6. Farming? by Mortlath · · Score: 1
    Am I the only one that first thought of SimFarm when they read the title?

    Ah, SimFarm. It was an interesting game.

    1. Re:Farming? by analog_line · · Score: 1

      I actually thought it was an article about Harvest Moon or something. Close enough to SimFarm I guess.

    2. Re:Farming? by yohan1701 · · Score: 1

      aahh SimFarm classic. Plant oranges, I always made a million dollars with oranges

    3. Re:Farming? by manifoldronin · · Score: 1

      You sure ain't. I think SimFarm is yet another example on "a game with depth != painting things in 3D".

      --
      Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
  7. PWNED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice work, I would have thought it was going to far even for /. mods, but you pulled it off.

  8. TGFP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's moments like this when I love Planetside. No farming, no loot, just gameplay.

  9. What the companies need to do by Jaeph · · Score: 1

    Is really track the sales on ebay (and similar places). When someone an auction is successful, and the account switches hands, you ban both buyer and seller from the game using their credit card #s, and share this information with other mmorpgs.

    That will stop this nonsense.

    -jeff (getting ready for the privacy freaks to whine)

    --
    Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    1. Re:What the companies need to do by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      Is really track the sales on ebay (and similar places). When someone an auction is successful, and the account switches hands, you ban both buyer and seller from the game using their credit card #s, and share this information with other mmorpgs.

      I'm sure E-bay will be quick to give away credit card numbers of their customers.

  10. headline made me think of.... by Allison+Geode · · Score: 1

    ...harvest moon. please tell me i'm not the only one who thought this was an article about harvest moon!

  11. Go Mods! by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    Hey this is interesting! With stories about hearing being revived by connection of a machine to the brainstem, we'll soon be able to raise people in a true virtual simulation. But I think we're real. Anyone who would be running the show would have been quite bored by now.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  12. A Modest Proposal by UES · · Score: 1
    I propose letting people farm all they want. In fact, I don't think there is enough. Let's have Everquest and the like just be straight-up one dollar-one vote. Then watch as bread-and-butter players abandon them in droves and the user base becomes five millionaires with +25 magic dragon slayer swords.

    Maybe then someone will design a fun MMO game that isn't a ripoff of the 30 year old Dungeons-and-Dragons model of accumulating crap to buy more crap, paying $50 plus $15 a month to pretend to be a blacksmith, rat exterminator, or droid mechanic, and leveling up (rewarding boring repetition) rather than allowing the player to grow their character based on SKILL. People would pay their subscription fees to see what kind of new and fun content came next, rather than so they can become addicted to "getting" fake stuff.

    Crazy talk, I know.

    1. Re:A Modest Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      www.puzzlepirates.com

      yar, it already be done.

  13. farming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    does it exist: Yes


    where do the farmers come from: Asia


    can we firewall off all of asia to make multiplayer games playable again? Yes, but then we'd lose access to tokyotopless.com