Slashdot Mirror


President of MMOG Currency Seller Grilled

Garthilk writes "When I first saw the interviews with IGE's President on Gamespy and OGaming, I was disappointed. Where were the difficult questions? I got to thinking that an average gamer could try to ask the hard questions. I emailed the folks at IGE and to my surprise, they agreed to conduct an email Q&A. Not soon after sending off my questions I received some replies. Unfortunately, some of the answers were not to questions I sent, so I sent some follow up questions as well. To my even greater surprise, the follow up questions were answered as well. Here is my interview, perhaps it's best to leave the journalism to the professionals."

26 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Um, try again? by nathan+s · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the article:

    Let us take for example you invite your friend and myself to your house to play Monopoly . I land on park place and buy it. Your friend then lands on Boardwalk. I offer your friend 5 real life dollars to sell Boardwalk to me, and he does. I now have an in game advantage. Does this behavior undermine the spirit of the game?

    PR MOUTHPIECE: I THINK YOU'RE REACHING A BIT WITH THIS ANALOGY. THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR MOG IS A YOUNG PHENOMENON AND ALWAYS EVOLVING, WHICH LEAVES IT OPEN TO A LOT OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION. HOWEVER, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BLATANT CHEATING, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE SECONDARY MARKET IS ABOUT, IN A GAME THAT IN NO WAY MIRRORS AN MOG. WE COULD GO ROUND AND ROUND ON THIS BUT I THINK STEVE HAS STATED HIS THOUGHTS PRETTY CLEARLY.

    Am I the only one who doesn't see a difference between paying $5 for Boardwalk and $5 for that +5 Mega Item of Doom to complete my Doom Set of Items?

    I think that it's cheating, and I also think the PR person knows it. The only way this would be fair is if it was allowed only on servers where players would know going in that it was being done.

    1. Re:Um, try again? by yotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, according to the rules of Monopoly:

      Unimproved properties, railroads and utilities (but not buildings) may be sold to any player as a private transaction for any amount that the owner can get.

      Paying $5 in real money seems legal. Or, if you want to get all pedantic, giving the person $5 and then, in a totally separate transaction, him giving you Park Place for $0 in game money.

    2. Re:Um, try again? by ReverendLoki · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Except for the fact that there's assuredly a plethora of +5 Mega Items of Doom, whereas there (should be) only one Boardwalk per game...

      Yeah, ok, so that's not such a great rebuttal. Though yours was a decent one, I find it amusing the analogies people come up with to try to describe this sort of thing as they see it.

      My take on all of this is that various publishers/developers should just make an official statement of their stance on this up front. Then the consumer can use that as part of their basis on whether or not they want that game. If you disagree with their policy and you feel strong enough about it, then don't play the game; if you only sort of disagree, then you can just suck it up and play it anyways.

      Legally speaking, I'm sure any company can cover themselves by stating that they will not regulate such things, and will not be held responsible for in-game loss. That's why they pay their legal departments, anyways. Include a caveat about how they reserve the right to regulate any behaviour that is/would impede in a substantial manner the enjoyment of the game by others, and you're set. I'm sure I'm missing a point or two, but then again, I'm not a lawyer, just some random gamer.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:Um, try again? by werelord · · Score: 2, Funny
      SECONDARY MARKET FOR MOG IS A YOUNG PHENOMENON AND ALWAYS EVOLVING, WHICH LEAVES IT OPEN TO A LOT OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION


      What I don't get is how solely being a phenomenon and always evolving makes it not a cut and dry situation, but the monopoly example does.. Does this mean that any dynamic content (well, content stays static, the context changes) can't be judged, but static content (or context) can be??

      Bah, I say.. If thats the case I'm going to make a game where the actual locations of Monopoly property changes randomly at random times; they'll jump over the whole table.. Then I'll start selling Boardwalk for 5 bucks a pop.. And of course, make the player pieces first-person that can move anywhere about the board.. Think I'll call it MMOnopoly..
    4. Re:Um, try again? by king-manic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Am I the only one who doesn't see a difference between paying $5 for Boardwalk and $5 for that +5 Mega Item of Doom to complete my Doom Set of Items?

      If that happened when you are playing you'd call the guy an asshole and problbly all quit the game after he passed the money. And people do walk away. Notice hwo everyone flocked to WOW.. notice wow have all of the high level items soul bound.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    5. Re:Um, try again? by droleary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wasn't talking about cost of entry (there is a cost to buy a Monopoly board and it is greater than zero) and you know it.

      Uh, of course I know it; that's why I brought it up! You weren't offering a parity example, so I helped you out. If you're upset that that you picked a bad example, don't blame me. As for Monopoly costing money, again, a parity relationship is that the game is a "server" that can host 6 (or whatever the recommend max is for Monopoly) "clients". To play on a server, I don't necessarily have to pay money, but if I do (which is the case for every MMORPG I can think of) then that establishes an exchange rate between game currency and other, "real" currency.

      I have no problems with everyone paying the same basic fee to play.

      Then I don't get your complaint. Everyone is paying the same fee to play. It's just that some people are paying other people for time they've already spent in the game. Instead of maintaining my own garden, I get fruits and vegetables from the store. Am I likewise cheating at real life because I'm paying someone else for farming instead of farming myself?

      However, I don't really consider it fair that Joe Rich Kid who doesn't work gets to buy his items and go around being an ass to the newbies who played the game without resorting to a secondary (and usually against the rules of the game) market.

      That makes no sense. Why are you concerned with exactly how someone in-game gets an item? As George Carlin said about prostitution: "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?" For the parity issue, why do you resent a rich guy paying for something when the game allows him to be given the same thing for free? Why shouldn't the guy you consider a loser be allowed to charge for the time and effort required to get that item?

      Again, that whole "everyone is cheating" thing is a nice attempt to distract from the real issue here, but then you don't really have anything useful to add in your post so I'm not particularly surprised that you had to invent something.

      If by "invent something" you mean "present a sound argument you are unable to refute", then I understand your "distraction". The basic fact is that money and time are both flowing into the game. That creates an economy just as sure as if you invested that time and money in a business in some other foreign land. It's understandable, if short-sighted, that the "ruler of the land" (i.e., the game company) is trying to lock everyone into an import-only economy, but there is value in trade and it is foolish to export nothing.

      That way, Sam Highschool Kid who worked at minimum wage for 10 hours to play the damn game isn't stuck getting raped by the aforementioned Joe Rich Kid who just bought his way to the top.

      You seem to mistakenly think that external money is somehow creating something that doesn't exist in the game. For JRK to do any raping, someone would have already had the items to sell! Without the secondary market, SHK would instead be raped by someone good enough to earn those items, so it'd actually be more brutal than what JRK could do. If you stopped to actually think about it you'd see that the secondary market actually helps equalize power in the game.

      I'm not even sure why I bothered to explain this. If you don't get it, try reading again.

      I assure you I "get it". The problem is that your argument is a poor one, and you refuse to admit your mistake. So, please, do not bother trying to further explain your current misguided viewpoint. Adopt a smarter viewpoint instead.

    6. Re:Um, try again? by Zangief · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Intelligent argument, but this doesn't justify the violation of TOS that those people are doing in many games.

      If the TOS says that an alternate market is illegal, guess what.

      IS CHEATING.

      No matter how many economic theories or legal subtleties you throw around.

  2. The end of IGE will be.... by MBraynard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    When the MMORPG publishers realize that they can sell the virtual items with zero overhead. They can be a broker and have no acquasition costs. Some are doing this now - Second Life?

    OR when they create a game where the only ingame commodity is ingame skill. PLanetside did a good job of leveraging this against time-spent ingame. It balanced beause even if you had no twitch skill, you could still have a roll, like engineer or medic.

    1. Re:The end of IGE will be.... by Attaturk · · Score: 2, Informative

      When the MMORPG publishers realize that they can sell the virtual items with zero overhead. They can be a broker and have no acquasition costs. Some are doing this now - Second Life?

      RV's entire revenue model is based around that principal.

    2. Re:The end of IGE will be.... by yotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you misread the grandparent.

      But how is someone beating you with a digital sword he bought on eBay for $1000 better than him beating you because he's got better hand-eye coordination?

    3. Re:The end of IGE will be.... by ReverendLoki · · Score: 2, Funny

      You kidding? Twitch gaming is the future, man. I've been working on my twitch skills, and I tell you, my win ration at chess has increased exponentially now that I can get in 20+ moves to my opponents one. Checkmate before they can even pick up their first piece!

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  3. I'll take a shot by Otter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Let us take for example you invite your friend and myself to your house to play Monopoly . I land on park place and buy it. Your friend then lands on Boardwalk. I offer your friend 5 real life dollars to sell Boardwalk to me, and he does. I now have an in game advantage. Does this behavior undermine the spirit of the game?

    It seems to me that there's a difference between a Monopoly game, where a contest is carried out from start to finish with a set, small group of people, and an ongoing MMORPG where player-player interactions are discontinuous.

    Buying items is much more disruptive in the former (imagine playing chess and having your opponent announce that he just bought a new rook on Ebay) than in the latter.

  4. Kudos for trying, but by bsdbigot · · Score: 3, Funny

    As you said, "perhaps it's best to leave the journalism to the professionals."

    (evil grin) Does anyone else feel that the interview read like Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson?

    To the interviewer: it's a good strategy to butter up your subject and take a gradual incline to the "hard questions." A valiant effort, but you need a little more practice on your incline; the three or so questions that PR answered were a little out there - it was clear from these questions that you had an agenda you were trying to further, and the Business wanted no part of that. I don't fault them at all for not answering. Tact - look it up.

    --
    main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,- 1,-100};for(I=l=0;l<10+0;put
  5. Interesting connection with OGaming and IGE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What bothers me more than even the article at OGaming is this connection between the two.

    The whois record for OGAMING.COM reads as follows:

    Quote:
    Registrant:
    OGAMING NETWORK
    152 W. 57th Street
    Carnegie Hall Tower, 25th Fl
    New York, New York 10019
    United States

    Registered through: GoDaddy.com
    Domain Name: OGAMING.COM
    Created on: 31-Jan-00
    Expires on: 31-Jan-09
    Last Updated on: 10-Jan-05

    Administrative Contact:
    Broyer, Jean-Marc dns@ogaming.com
    OGAMING NETWORK
    152 W. 57th Street
    Carnegie Hall Tower, 25th Fl
    New York, New York 10019
    United States
    2122654900 Fax -- 2122657685
    Technical Contact:
    Broyer, Jean-Marc dns@ogaming.com
    OGAMING NETWORK
    152 W. 57th Street
    Carnegie Hall Tower, 25th Fl
    New York, New York 10019
    United States
    2122654900 Fax -- 2122657685

    Domain servers in listed order:
    NS1.OGAMING.COM
    NS8.ENTHROPIA.COM

    Looking up Mr. Broyer on Google yields http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...%22+ ige&hl=en, which reads, in part:

    Quote:
    Jean-Marc Broyer
    - General Manager, Content Network

    Jean-Marc Broyer joined IGE in September, 2004, bringing to the company more than seven years of experience at Ubi Soft Entertainment in production, business development and editorial management in the multiplayer gaming industry. At Ubi Soft, Jean-Marc most recently served as International Online Content Manager for Shadowbane, Uru and The Matrix Online. Prior to assuming that role, Jean-Marc was the Associate Producer for Shadowbane.

    Taken together, these demonstrate that OGaming--and, by inclusion, TGH--was an IGE subsidiary as of the update date for the whois record: 10-Jan-05.

  6. Bad PR by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the PR group were smart, they would have had their legal department coach Mr. Salyer against saying certain things that had legal ramifications -- rather than inserting obvious PR crud. Steve could have just said "There's serious legal implications to that, and I think I'm going to have to skip that one." This is a common thing to do. Quite sad when they can't even be professional enough to speak with one company voice.

  7. That's FPS discrimination by MattW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was a fairly dominant Q3 player. I hadn't played an FPS before that since Duke Nukem. I moved on after that to NWN, and played on a RP-oriented server.

    Now I'm playing CoH and WoW.

    Those games require only a modicum of skill. Yes, it is possible to be 'better' by knowing your character and capabilities, and in the more hectic group-battle situations your decision making can be amplified to the level it is at least somewhat significant. However, there is nowhere *near* the level of learned skill you get compared to a game like Q3 or Counterstrike. I've *always* had fantastic hand-eye coordination and reaction speed. I was competitive with the very best Street Fighter 2 players (back when Capcom used to give away full-sized videogames for winning big tournaments, back in the 90s). Reactions don't translate into skill. They may provide a ceiling, in the same way that physical fitness is a ceiling for competitiveness in a sport like tennis, but those underlying attributes are far less significant than the "learned skill" that goes along with the game.

    MMORPGs place an artificial cap on the skill you can attain because the "margin of error" is so large that it is easy for a very quick-thinking, mentally agile and highly practiced opponent to have virtually no advantage over someone who is distinctly second rate. Both of them might trounce on a newb who can't play his character, but their differential of skill at the high level of play doesn't translate into a game significance.

    Morever, if you think outplanning and out-thinking your opponent is not a significant part of an FPS, then you're talking out of your ass. Anyone who has watched professionals play a game like Q3 knows that the entire game is a chess match which revolves around control of the map and the resources it provides. Anticipation, timing, the ability to adapt quickly, understanding an opponent; those are the skills which make you good at the highest eschelon of skill in "twitch games". Newb players think it is about fast reactions or perfect aim, but it isn't, because at the top level, EVERY pro hits almost every shot. I only played as a warm-up snack for pros, but when owning one of the major open DM servers at qcon '02, I racked up something like 80 straight hits with the railgun on Q3DM17. My aim and movement was pro-level; I'd still get absolutely *owned* against a pro playing 1v1, because they do that sort of thing automatically, but they back it up with beautiful execution, perfect timing, fluent adaptation, and hard-to-crack strategies for controlling a map. Watching pros play that game was like watching chess. They'd feint, move to control resources. They'd fall back and grab secondary objectives while their opponent was busily getting a primary one they thought they couldn't effectively contest. They'd viciously press their advantage; sacrafice several points in order to get a positional or strategic advantage to put them back in the driver's seat, and so on.

  8. Fundamental flaw in reasoning by Cutriss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's all well and good for IGE to market their "services" as people paying for the time spent in earning the items/money involved, but this isn't exactly creating a "new market".

    Sure, you can till your own field and grow your own potatoes, but not many of us have the resources to do that, and so we buy potatoes from the store. Farmers and grocers are providing a service to us.

    What IGE does is akin to squatting on your farm and growing potatoes there. If you're already using the land, they'll just take your potatoes. If you aren't, then you weren't missing the land anyway. And then they proceed to sell back your own potatoes to you, under the premise that "you weren't growing them anyway".

    For some people, sure, they are providing a service. But all they're really doing is effectively holding the in-game services for ransom, which deprives those whom choose not to pay IGE the opportunity to acquire said riches.

    --
    "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
  9. Actually, there's a better one in there. by Moryath · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Consider the following:

    Secondly, do you believe developers may hurt their own customer base by targeting them rather than the companies who purvey in the secondary market? Steve: When they try and stifle the secondary market by action against players or companies like IGE, they hurt their game. If I were sitting in a management position at a developer or publisher, I would give my customers what they want. Gamers, by in large, want the benefit of the secondary market. If you don't believe me, check out the size of the market. Millions of gamers are involved. They vote every day with their dollars.
    Yeah, there are how many players playing these games, outnumbering their "clients" by at least a 100 to 1 ratio. And we, the players, hate their "employees" who farm all this shit, because they grief us, get in the way by spawn camping, and are 100% certain to be nothing but bots that are in violation of the unattended character policies in any event.

    Guess what, Steve. I voted with my wallet. I walked away from FFXI because they weren't doing shit about your "employees." And I know more people that have done the same, than haven't. They went to games like WoW where the terms of service are actually enforced, too.

    We, the gamers, do not like your service. A bunch of Skr1pt Kiddiez who crow about twinking their characters with their parents' credit cards like your service, but we don't like those idiots either.

  10. Re:Maybe a better analogy is like this. by maglor_83 · · Score: 2, Informative

    After qualifying for a spot in the competition, they then decide to sell that spot

    Almost the same thing happened at the Athens Olympics. Ian Thorpe false started in the Australian qualifying, and was disqualified. Then the guy who won gave his place away to him. I reckon it was wrong, but it doesn't really relate the same way in a MMORPG because its perfectly legal to give items away to others without real money transactions.
  11. Let the market figure it all out by jgardn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have a suggestion, which it seems people are already following. Why don't we just let the market decide the way things should work?

    I think what will happen is the publishers will eventually grant real legal rights to the objects and avatars in that world. The players seem to want this, and seem to understand that this is fair.

    If I were into this sort of thing, I would begin forming enterprises that facilitate this. For example, if your avatar owns a lot of expensive things, how about you get an insurance policy that will pay our real dollars in the event the items are lost in certain situations? What about in-game escrow services - avatars who belong to particular groups who have built up a reputation for being responsible in holding items and in-game cash? How about time-share contracts, where items are loaned but only for certain times of the day? What about item rental?

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:Let the market figure it all out by DingerX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Several reasons why this isn't a good idea: A) if you grant legal property rights to junk in games, then you subject your company, which maintains the servers, to all kinds of legal nonsense. Nerf a weapon? someone files a lawsuit. Add a new weapon? Someone files a lawsuit because their weapon was de facto nerfed. Basically, you resign all control over the game balance, and you lose customers.

      B) If you ignore that, companies have the ability to print money and sell it. And if they engage in it directly (a la "there"), nobody's going to be interested. Playing a game that can be "bought" is simply no fun. It might work for certain "religions", but the rest of us just don't like the idea.

      So tacit collaboration helps everybody. No need to advertise it, but you cut a deal with a company like IGE, and everybody benefits.

      Of course, the real problem would be a game design that rewards tedious menial labour. The game itself should be rewarding, not the prestige gained from doing crap simpler than flipping burgers.

      Now, if you're running a virtual currency, and you're looking to keep the power in the hands of producers (and not hoarders), may I suggest a solution from the Federal Prison system?
      Establish two currencies: 20 dollar bills and cigarettes are traiditional, but you can use Quatloons and Augustan Denarii if you prefer. At regular intervals, change the exchange rates from 2:1 to 1:2, and back: and make sure that no vendor takes both currencies.

      If you want to have some BS magic devices, have their efficacy follow similar cycles.

  12. Hey look, there's one of the IGE fuckers now. by Moryath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've never seen anyone complain about the drop rate on items, or the spawn rate on some of the rarer monsters. IF your mythical friend actually exists - which seems unlikely since you had to hide behind the screen of an Anonymous Coward - then he had bad luck, no more, no less.

    What I *HAVE* seen, time and again, is players being PO'ed that one of your fucking camp-bots is sitting right in the zone waiting for the same monster for days on end, and then having to go to the auction house or worse yet, some shithole operation like IGE, to get the item.

    Then again, I long ago signed on to a petition that Square make all the Rare monster drops a sure thing, but Rare/EX instead so that they wouldn't face the campbot problem. Did they listen? NO.

    Neither did they enforce their restrictions against 'bots.

    So I left.

  13. The final unanswered question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Regarding the question about IGE trying to cut a deal with the game developers/publishers...

    IGE has indeed approached one company that I know about, and has probably approached others. From what I hear IGE is always eager to cut some kind of a deal. The theory I've heard discussed is that they are in search of legitimacy from the publishers of MMOG's. Any legitimacy they can obtain from one group could be used to leverage more acceptance from others.

    I suspect that the "service" that IGE and other brokers provide is actually a net boon to the game companies since it provides more total value to their game for their user population. That is, the game company gets more revenue by allowing a bit of "illegal" trading ==> thereby providing high value for some players and a little bit lower value for the rest. As long as it is officially illegal the game company reserves the right to crack down should they see the practice actually cut into their profits (more unhappy customers than happy ones instead of the other way around).

  14. IGE Owns Ogaming, Thottbot & More? by Garthilk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.okratas.com/modules.php?op=modload&name =News&file=article&sid=58

  15. Monopoly by BenjyD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Monopoly analogy is spot on, AFAICS. MMORPGs provide enough factors that addicted gamers can come up with arguments to convince themselves that what they're doing isn't like buying Boardwalk.

    To me it seems like Magic:The Gathering. I was addicted to that for a long time and spent far too much money on cards (can't have a Blue/Red Direct Damage/Jitsu deck without Jokalhaups, Iceberg and a bunch of other rares). You can avoid the problems, but in an open competition the guy with the most expensive deck wins. I fudged the issue for ages, justifying all the money I spent on booster packs and cards.

    In a small group of friends, you can play controlled tournaments, with limits on cards or random cards so money doesn't come into it. But go out into the wider world and you can't do that any more. Eventually I realised that I was only doing it because I was addicted, and gave all my cards away (and yes, I do regret giving away my multiple tournament winning, very expensive main deck for free *now*, but at the time it made sense).

    Doesn't it cheapen the game and reduce the impact of skill if any PvP or vaguely competitive aspect of the game can be decided by the fact that one player can afford to buy a sword of death+10?

    Don't get me started on the fact that people play games that AFK macros can play for them, and so boring that they'd pay to have someone else play for them.

  16. Why not a market in services? by tillerman35 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Hopefully this isn't thread-jacking. At worst steering the thread a little, anyway.

    But why not a secondary market in services? Stop selling stuff because you don't own the stuff anyway (if you believe the publishers). On the other hand, nobody owns your time. There's no reason you, either as an individual or agent of a corporate entity, can't use your time to help out another player for pay. You've paid your subscription, you're following the EULA, no cheating is involved, nothing is being done that couldn't be done for free without breaking any terms of service.

    Some examples:

    • Corpse Retrieval- lost your soul/corpse/shard/whatever in a skeery dungeon right next to the uberunderlord? We'll dispatch a Level 99 Brawnmeister to escort you safely to it and back to the newbie yard.
    • Tour Guide- Want to see all the cool sights in the game? We'll provide you with safe escort.
    • Quest help - Last quest item near a mob that's just to uber for you? We'll get you help.
    • Group help - Tired of fellow players who jack your groups, can't play their class, act like idiots, get your character killed? Need just one more character to round out your group? We'll send out 2,3, as many characters as needed to get the job done. You get the exp, you get the loot, we fight for you (to the "death," if that's what it takes to get your quest done and keep your character safe)
    • Entertainment - Are you lonely? Need someone to "keep you company" in the Owerly Inn? We'll send a member of the race/gender/alignment of your choice to a location where you can "converse" in private.
    • Match Making - Need to hook up with someone who has similar likes and dislikes both in-game and RL? Take our Xanthian Compatibility Survey and we'll find the right troll for you!
    All the controversy goes away because the secondary market company becomes a broker for services, not items. No more question of who owns in-game geld/items/whatever. It's no different than paying someone to help you mow the lawn.

    Note: My exposure to MMORPG-ing is limited to EverQuest 2; do your own mental translation to the MOG of your choice.