Slashdot Mirror
Mythic Rips SOE a New One
GameDailyBiz has a statement by Mythic's head honcho Mark Jacobs. The CEO of Dark Age of Camelot's developer takes great exception to the aforementioned EQII auction site. From the article: "I'm disappointed with the decision from a leader in the MMO industry to go down a path which in the past, has been an anathema to them and remains so to just about every other MMORPG company in the industry. I think that not only supporting the sale of in-game characters, items and currency, but also taking a 'cut' of those sales, is not only a mistake but one of the worst decisions in the history of the MMORPG industry..."
*Raises his fist* Fight the power!
SOE is always looking for a bigger slice of the pie. If they can be hypocritical enough to open a sanctioned auction site after years of banning players for auctioning things off in their games, they will do anything. Be prepared for a whole new breed of micropayment based MMORPGs.
Would you like to loot this UberSword of Might +7? That will be $0.10, tyvm.
The twat will change his tune when he sees how much money they make. The activity will ALWAYS go on. Why NOT make it legit, and make a percentage?
It's just sour grapes.
I think that really would be great! I mean, you sell a lot more crack when you fist hand it out for free. Oh, even better: Maybe all the free accounts would have perma-death (unless they can secure in-game means of resurrection) while the paid accounts have a "guardian angel" that auto-resurrects them. Or how about this: a flat-rate direct withdrawl of $5 from your bank account for every time you click "Yes, resurrect my character"? Mark my words, somebody is going to try this, and if they do it right, they will succeed!
If they really use the crack model, they will even let you download the game itself without cost, knowing that sooner or later, you'll find something in the game worth paying for with real money.
But before they do any of this, they need to get the bugs out of the in-game paying system, and maybe that's what this is.
So is this a something we should fear? No way! It will be great!
that Sony's trading in, and not 'items' in the traditional sense. That +10 Axe you just bought? It's software, and Sony's no more bound to guarantee it's value than Microsoft is bound to gaurantee Excel won't eat your work. Most states allow for minimal or no damages caused by defective or faulty software, so the most you'll get out of Sony for losing that $500 dollar sword is $5 bucks (except in Nebraska, of course).
Put another way, can you sue Microsoft because Word XP won't read your Word 5.0 documents? It's the same for Sony. You can't sue just because your sword's worth half what is was in EQ 1.0.
And before you jump up and say the law should be changed, don't forget what would happen to your favorite open source project is there was as much accountablity for software as there is for real products.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't play MMOGs so can someone explain to me why this is bad? I never did understand why companies banned this type of activity. If it's a matter of rich players being able to get really strong because they can just buy stuff, isn't that the case in real life too? Rich folks can get nice cards, big houses, and live-in call girls. We can't. Why is it wrong in a MMOG?
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
Mark Jacobs is upset because he didn't have the balls to do it first. He fell for the imaginary ethics dillemma about not selling in-game items, and someone exploited this weakness against him.
Today, Asian farmers are making the profits from character and item sales. Publishers get none of that money, so there is zero chance that this provides cash for a better game. Let the publisher get a slice of the action and you've given the companies more incentive to stay heavily invested into the games and perhaps expand them. This might even help startup MMOGs, because they have an alternate revenue stream that is not limited to monthly fees. Any time you make an industry more profitable, it opens up to more people.
I challenge the old "it will ruin the game!" argument, with the simple fact that this sales activity has been going on for several years now.
Watch the other companies trash-talk the idea at first, then later start doing it themselves. It makes complete sense to do this, and the arguments against it are rather nebulous and some are just emotional in nature. Many people are just angry at the idea that someone with cash has a big edge. And that differs from real life how? If you want to play a game that has absolutely no intrusion of real-life issues, then I suggest a single-player game.
This idea opens up the games for casual players, who would happily spend $40 to skip 100 hours of playtime to keep up in levels with their power-gamer peers. Who does this actually hurt? Other than hurting some feelings, it hurts no one.
Well I, for one, think that Mark Jacobs is 100% right.
I don't want to get all nostalgic, but does anyone else in here remember the ancient days of yore when an RPG was played with maps, miniatures, and funny-shaped dice, when the object of the game was to have fun by escaping into fantasy worlds and pretending you're someone else, someone who may be like you or may be as different from you as night and day? We used to make fun of people who got too much into the game mechanics. We called them "roll" players.
I feel sorry for people who have grown up recently and only know of RPG's as computer games. Something important has been lost when the creativity and imagination of a game master was replaced with a computer's unrelenting adherence to game rules and regulations. The goal is no longer to escape and have fun, it is to WIN. Now, players will do anything to have a bigger and better sword than the next guy has, who is trying to have a bigger and better axe than you have.
Don't get me wrong, I like some of the games out there today. I play City of Heroes myself, and I enjoy it a lot, but it's not the same. It's hard to feel very heroic when you have to deal with typical conversations like, "Hey, can you help me with a sewer run? I'm trying to get to level 38 and need to farm some krakens. We don't need to kill the hydra, because I'm only two bubbles away." When I stick solely to roleplaying and completely avoid game-speak, I get accused of being a weirdo and generally avoided. (Disclaimer: Yes, there are exceptions, very few and far between.)
The whole online auction stuff is a wonderful illustration of just how non-RP computer RPG's have become. I have a question for people who participate in such silliness: If you're not going to acquire your goodies by playing the game, why bother playing at all? Why not just stick to Progress Quest and save yourself all of that tedium of having to actually earn stuff?
As for Sony, I guess Mark covered it pretty well. Can't you see that what you're doing is hurting the genre of RPG's more than they already have been? What the hell does buying a sword on "Station Exchange" have to do with role playing? Nothing. In the article, Mark says:
We will gladly 'leave money on the table' to ensure that whether or not you like our games, that they remain as that, games and not an entertainment version of day-trading.
I say hooray for him and for Mythic for not selling out, once and for all making the R in RPG meaningless. As for me, I've never played EverQuest, and now you can count me out for good. Apparently, there's a large market of people out there playing this game who believe owning virtual goodies is more important than role playing, and because of this, it is obviously not a game I would be interested in.
Ebay can be seen as a meter of your MMORPG's health. If there are a lot of auctions selling in game content, people still want stuff and the economy is flourishing. If there are no ebay auctions, theres nothing in the game that people want, and your game sucks.
If you don't have ebay, you have givers. Givers just give items to noobs. They mess the 'economy', just the same as ebayers do.
If you really want to fix the economy, don't do item decay, that sucks. Do this: Allow users to flip a coin on extra equipment. If its heads, the item gets better, if its tails, the item is destroyed. Suddenly handme down items could possibly be the next big thing.
Also its good to have equipment for every situation. Elemental defense on armor, elemental attacks on weapons, weapons of slaying. You need lots of reasons to diversify equipment.
I wish Mythic would do less time complaining and spend more time making a new game. Hey maybe one where your team isn't forced upon you.
God spoke to me.
Online RPGs have always been less about roleplaying - it's difficult to see how they could be any other way, without the presence of a gamesmaster/referee to help guide play.
You say that Sony is hurting the 'genre of RPGs', but I don't see how that's the case. What they're doing is expanding the genre - you'll still have your tabletop RPGs, and if you don't like MMORPGs that have auctions, fine - play the ones that don't.
MOD me as you wish, bu tthe facillitation of sold goods s noting but a game of cheaters!!!!
This move by SOE has totally ruin thier game. Thank god to a few folks at guilwars.com
I donno what EQ2's policies are towards item buying/selling in the EULA, but in FFXI if you buy/sell an item for real money through a 3rd party system and you get scammed, you're basicly screwed. So why can't SOE simply follow this same policy? Why go through the hassle of trying to deal with it even though they've tried before (*cough*EQ1*cough*) and failed? This just makes SOE look shortsighted and trying to cash in on something they won't or can't fix.
The more I think about this, the more it makes sense for Sony to do it.
Think about it - these games cost ten to fifteen bucks a month. Most people are only willing to pay for one of these a month, the diehard maybe two or three. Thus, only one MMO is being paid for per person per month (and only those willing to pay 10 to fifteen play)... and if one steals everyone's thunder (WoW) then everybody else doesn't even a chance.
However, if you could lower the cost without lowering the quality, more people will have multiple MMOs installed. I'm not just talking about brokering deals (though this has the added benefit of lessening the time a person has to spend in a given MMO to make it worthwhile, which is also good for this purpose) but the inclusion of ads, etc.
Point being, if people can play more than one MMO at a time (and if people like me can use the hours they spend at work to give them a shot of playing at a level close to their friends), this will almost certainly raise the number of MMOs the market can support - and I think competition will certainly improve the product.
I think this is a good thing.
:)
MMORPGs have generally catered to the time-rich. The eBay and other markets sprung up as the time-poor (but money-rich) struggled for fair treatment. Anyone complaining about buying and selling of items is usually time-rich and enjoys the advantages they have playing a game designed for the time-rich. Most of them believe you have to "earn" your character, paying in labour far beyond the price you paid for the game and the monthly fees. They must be the sort of customers accountants dream of.
The MMORPG industry is filled with exploitive businesses producing badly designed games that are inherently discriminatory based on the amount of time commitment players can make to them. This isn't about how much practice a player puts in, but giving their avatar/character advantages based on time invested. Skill becomes a secondary factor, slave to the monthly fee driven treadmill. I suppose for non-competitive MMORPGs, whatever floats your boat, but for games involving PvP this makes casual gamers into second class gamers.
Thankfully, companies like ArenaNet are producing games like Guild Wars that are starting to make positive changes.
The more these games can start focusing on role-playing and meaningful interactions (including competition) between players and less about time-based character development the better. Item markets like SOE's are a step down a sidepath, but I'm happy to see anything that allow more types of gamers, not just the time-rich, get their gaming fix. In the end, the industry will greatly profit from making MMORPG games more accessible and fair - and so they should.
Complexity Happens
As soon as a game becomes something you can win money at, it becomes GAMBLING.
Sony better check their local ordinances.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Napster was free. Industry didn't like it. Napster now charges. Same concept. People are going to do it whether you try to stop them or not. If you can't beat them, join them (and make money too).
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
It was your choice to subscribe to a commercial on-line gaming service. Presumably, you think you're getting something for your money. Well, your vendor made a business decision. If you don't like it, go somehwere else.
Of course, you could get off your lazy butt and actually contribute to an open source MMOG; there are several existing ones and several new ones in the works.
Sony controls the market for their games.
By officially sanctioning their own in house exchange site, they are openning the door for companies like IGE to file restraint of trade and monoply complaints.
Surely SOE legal looked at this scheme right?
Look guys. The reason why this is so controversial is because they're trading in virtual objects. Those objects are not real. They're nothing but records in a database. All a programmer has to do is push one button and the systems spawns about a hundred thousand rare artefacts or with one hack upgrade all the characters to level 1983710301E+23.
That's the problem really. The value of an object is rated by how rare it is in the real world. Supply and demand. The virtual objects in the game are not real and can easily be modified or cloned.
It's really pointless and you're an idiot if you fall for such scams.
Y
The only proviso I have to this is that anyone providing an officially sanctioned site for trading of the items makes it crystal clear that the cut they are taking from each and every trade is in the same manner as the service provided by companies like Ebay.
The important difference with SOE providing the service is that they are also the ones providing the product (the vendor) in the first place and may implicitly be saying that they're giving more support for the items if they don't live up to the expectations of the buyer, as consumers are usually accustomed to the attitude of "I spent good money on this, so I have a right to complain to a Fair Trade authority/law since this isn't the thing I expected it to be" with anything they normally buy in any other real-world transaction.
Umm, I can, think of several that are quite happy to associate in-game goods/wealth with real world money. I'm too lazy to post all the links - google it up Mr Jacobs - you're missing some important market research.
I think this is a good idea. Just like laws in real life, these rules in the game that you can't do certain things and will be punished if you do don't prevent everyone from doing it, and sometimes such rules cause more problems than they solve. So rather than create a kind of a black market on ebay by forbidding the real life trade, make a sanctioned site on which it can be done totally officially. That way SOE will have much more control over the situation. For example, they could limit the number of items sold or bought per player per month or something.
As a very long time Dark Age of Camelot player, i can say this:
Mark Jacobs loves nerfing classes, items, etc. and has a long history of pissing off players this way.
In his statement he briefly touches on his real objections to official sale of items.. he is afraid the players will sue Mythic...
Mythic's business model, is based on releasing a non-free addon every 12 months. Containing new super items, which makes the player with the addon 30-50% more powerfull than the players who havent purchased it. (Shrouded Isles, Trials of Atlantis)
This would mean 2 things for Mythic, each addon would bring the trading system to an almost standstill in the months leading up to the addon.
The people that have purchased items, will be pissed off to see them made almost worthless by new much better stuff.
And more people will be pissed off when Mr. Jacobs realises that the new Sword of Uberness is TOO disrubtive on gamebalance, and decides to nerf it. Pissing off all the players who just purchased it, and opening up for class action lawsuits.
Officially: "No comments"
I take issue with the statement:
"one of the worst decisions in the history of the MMORPG industry..."
No, I believe that releasing Anarchy Online when they did was one of the worst decisions in the history of the MMORPG industry.
Auctioning of in-game stuff is something that players want, and have wanted, for years...to the point where they're going to do it irrespective of whether an MMORPG's parent company supports it or tries to stop them. By supporting it, SOE are being highly insightful and intelligent...and by taking a cut of the cheese from it, they're also doing something which I've advocated that such companies do for a long time, in order to create an incentive for themselves to do this. SOE should be applauded for this in the strongest possible terms, and most definitely NOT criticised for it. SOE will find that by doing this, not only will they notice a large boost in revenue, but they will enjoy an equivalent boost in positive public relations as well.
This is a case of an entertainment company (SOE) actually supporting what their customers want, and existing in harmony with their customers, rather than trying to dictate every minute detail of what they're able to do, and suffering economically (and in other ways) as a result, which is the more normal form of behaviour.
The customer is not the enemy, Mark. They're the person who pays your bills, and gives you a profit. If SOE have the vision and intelligence to be able to recognise this fact and utilise it in order to prosper from it, don't whine because them doing it makes you look bad because you're *not* doing it.
This kind of interests me, because it parallels the mostly liberal reaction to the war on drugs -- rather than wasting our time and resources tracking down these "outlaws", let's "legalize what they're doing," "regulate what they're doing," and "take our cut of what they're doing." and watch all the related problems goes away.
The nice thing about this situation is that (and, granted the criticism is coming from a competitor, so the mileage may vary,) somebody is standing up and saying "there will be unintended consequences of this, and here's a few of them." Now if only someone would do that on the "legalize drugs" front so we can finalize realize how stupid that idea is, too.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
The statement I find most damning by SOE's Smedley is this one:
Look, if you made those levels and the time spent attaining them worthwhile, instead of just grinding, then "loyal and honest" players would want to experience them.In my mind, the IGE-type solution sucks because
- It encourages farmers, and a true farmer is not someone experiencing game for the entertainment value that most players are. That creates imbalances in the game universe.
- It betrays a deficiency in gameplay. It creates the equation paying for weapon X is more desirable then spending Y amount of time attaining it. This is because, in the case of SOE, you're more than likely required to grind to obtain weapon X, senseless and boring.
Make the game only a game. Don't allow people to buy their way through it.Either improve gameplay or accept that some people are not going to be willing to expend hundreds of hours in mindless grinding. I think the real problem is that SOE is not willing to lose customers who aren't happy with gameplay, and they think that by allowing said customers to buy content, they'll keep them in the fold.
farming doesnt break the game, the game is broke in the first place. Farming and selling is just a exploitation of a broken economy system.
...but I got my trusty piss jug ready for the long haul! *types in /pizza* Heh, see you at 4 am when I sign off, losers.
awww, poor game character and item auctioning folks won't be able to charge illegal activity surcharges now :( Let's all feel sorry for them and join in the collective whine. 'They took oer jeeerbs!!!'.
...but I got my trusty piss jug ready for the long haul! *types in /pizza* Heh, see you at 4 am when I sign off, loosers.
Download Opera 9 (in the BETA forum)
This is why legalization of some drugs, like Majuana, will never happen in the US. One State might try, but because it steps on the financial toes of another, they will be stopped. Sony is trying something new. If others are making profit, Sony should too.
I am sorry, but MMORPGs have absolutely nothing to do with RP. They don't even attempt to try and intergrate RP into these games. Further, even if they did attempt to make the games more RP friendly, starting everyone at level zero would not be one of the things to do to make the game more RP friendly. The idea of starting at level 1 and leveling up has nothing to do with RP. In fact, any decent RP game worth its salt won't even have levels.
If you want to see a real RP game, I suggest www.armageddon.org. It is an old text based MUD with perm death set in a desert wasteland. If I had the time I would still be playing that game.
Some day a small developer is going to develop a truly RP centric game. The current crop of MMORPGs are not that game though. Some auctioning going on isn't going to make the game less RP friendly.
Its only some server that will be 'auction - enabled' dont like it? Dont play on an auction - enabled server problem solved!
'In satisfying the broad player demand for a service such as Station Exchange, SOE is again innovating, and any innovation is bound to have its critics.
Unsanctioned virtual property auctions are now rampant, and will continue to grow whether or not publishers implement their own auction sites. Every MMO company has to assess the needs of its own player base. It is clear to us that we have many loyal and honest players who simply don't have the time to take multiple characters through the game's higher levels of play and want a sanctioned, secure means to broaden their play experience. Increasingly, our customer service department has had to bear the brunt of futily attempting to assist these players when they are cheated by unsecure transactions. Station Exchange will enable these honest players to use an auction service without concern that they will be scammed.
We want all of our players to have a positive experience and since our player base has been divided on this issue, with increasingly more support for real world monetary transactions, we have determined that offering new servers that are Station Exchange enabled is a great way to strike that balance. However, we will continue to maintain our strict policy against exploiting, using macros or bots, duping items, and transactions through 3rd party auction sites.
When SOE launched PvP enabled servers and dedicated role-playing servers for EverQuest, we knew that those communities would develop in a different way. In that same fashion, we fully expect that the Exchange-enabled server communities for EverQuest II will develop their community in a different way. When a player chooses to play on an Exchange-enabled server, they know that they will be playing with other like-minded players and that they will have the option of supplementing their own character's evolution through the Station Exchange. It will be an optional way to play our game.
However, we will continue to enforce our right to ban the accounts of players not only for explicit forms of cheating on all servers but also for disruptive gameplay. The game design of additional content for EverQuest II will remain focused on the original intent of the game and we will not allow the gameplay experience to be hindered by unfair play, whatever form that may take.
We are excited about Station Exchange and feel that we are taking the needs of all our loyal fans into account. Station Exchange simply gives the players a choice, and security for those whose choice is to utilize an auction service to enhance their game play experience.'
I think Mythic has missed the ball here and is trying to make up for not doing it first honestly. It's sheer idiocy to think that the "black market", which has an estimated $300-$800 million dollar market, would just dissappear if you said you didn't like it long enough. You could of course, ban accounts, say it's bad, and continue to put forth 40% of your technical force into solving claims of "missing items", "stolen accounts" and "bugged quests"...
OR you could come into the little world I like to call "reality" and eliminate those problems by offering a service that is so automated and straight forward its a money making MACHINE.
Let's look at the alternatives shall we?
40% technical support put toward account/item stealing asshats that don't really tell you what the problem is...or
Put forth minimal effort after initial work (auction site) is up and running and profit...
The ONLY thing that would effectively stop these so called "black market" auctions would be to have NO trading in your game whatsoever and to not allow a credit card to change on the said account unless there was voice and social security number checking.
It was inevitable one way or the other.
Why go through all of the bother of brokering auctions? Just create an in-game store that takes real-life cash for ultra-rare artifacts. Make it so we can buy experience points and skills, too. I'm tired of being lvl 1 every time I start a new character, I want him to be godlike and I want it now. Everquest 3 should have one central location, let's call it "The Mall." You go to the mall and outfit your character with as much cool stuff as you can afford. Then you go next door to "The Gym" and max out all of your skills and stats. Now you have a legendary hero who can go kick the ass of every monster in the realm without fear (not that you had to fear anyway, because there's no permadeath.)
In fact, let's do away with all that adventuring and killing monsters and digging through dungeons crap all together. It just takes way too much time. I want a game where you all you do is buy stuff and then strut around town showing it off.
I don't see it as fair to people that actually play the game well out of skill and taking the time and effort to play the game.
It goes back to the real-world thing of "those with the money have the power".
Video games are about entertaining yourself away from reality, not being reminded in another medium that because you can't pay to make your character all powerful, that you "suck" or should be looked down upon by others playing the game.
I do agree with the suggestion for free accounts for permadeath on your character. I also like the idea of having to pay for an account that allows you to resurrect your character and to have multiple characters on a paying account.
I think large game companies are getting too greedy for their own good. I think charging your faithful users of your games for every little thing to enhance the experience, whether in downloadables or MMOGs, is a cheap way out, and is relating to your users that you think they aren't smart enough to play or learn the game, "So why don't we just let them pay their way up the ladder".
My thoughts...
It's because the entire point of a virtual world, or at least with these game-oriented fantasy ones (not things like Second Life), is to provide its users with a pretend reality that's supposedly separate from the real one.
It's true that people with more time to spend on the world tend to advance faster than those who don't, and that's a real-world concern. That's a flaw in these designs, and not a strength. Outright selling the items just intensifies the flaw.
People don't play things like Everquest so they can be subjected to the same kind of gigantic disparity of wealth that infests the real world, but to escape that kind of thing. It may be impossible to escape that kind of thing completely, but you can bloody well not give it a big hug and call it brother, too.
I'm right! Hooray!
Argh, I could have explained that a little better. Let me correct myself before one of you gents does it for me.
Gigantic disparities of wealth? They may or may not be unavoidable in a virtual world. What is more likely to be avoidable is people transferring their real-world wealth into the virtual setting.
That's what I'm right about. That's what I'm hooray about.
I can't see how SOE is doing anything different...and again they're actually recieving compensation for the allowed "gambling" so that really gets messsy.
1. Mark is the kind of guy who is not afraid to say what he thinks. He honestly doesn't believe embracing the exchange of in-game goods for real money is good for the industry and for the games themselves. That's his honest opinion and there are certainly many others who feel the same way. 2. Mark is also a shrewd businessman. He understands that, now to SOE has taken the move, if he genuinely doesn't agree with it, then he should not simply say nothing. He should get Mythic's own take on the issue out in the public discourse and work it as a product differentiator. Don't like what SOE is doing with their approach to gaming? Hey, come play Mythic's games, we don't do that lame shit here! 3. In the end, I don't think this is as big an issue as Mark makes it out to be. For YEARS people have been saying "Why don't we ..." and we all have heard the reasons why it shouldn't be done; SOE finally decided to give it a try. Good for them for trying to innovate and to expand their business in a new direction. The market is big enough to support games for folks of different beliefs - some people believe the primary factor in progress within a game should be time; others believe money should be allowed to play a role.
4. If the experiment is a success, then Mythic will still see success in its role catering to those people with different tastes, and SOE will grow their business by catering to the players Mythic doesn't want. If the experiment fails, the exposure to SOE is going to be limited to only those few servers, even if some horrible legal decision costs them big bucks, and Mythic can capitalize on any fallout from SOE's weakened position in the marketplace.
Bruce
1. Mark is the kind of guy who is not afraid to say what he thinks. He honestly doesn't believe embracing the exchange of in-game goods for real money is good for the industry and for the games themselves. That's his honest opinion and there are certainly many others who feel the same way.
..." and we all have heard the reasons why it shouldn't be done; SOE finally decided to give it a try. Good for them for trying to innovate and to expand their business in a new direction. The market is big enough to support games for folks of different beliefs - some people believe the primary factor in progress within a game should be time; others believe money should be allowed to play a role.
2. Mark is also a shrewd businessman. He understands that, now to SOE has taken the move, if he genuinely doesn't agree with it, then he should not simply say nothing. He should get Mythic's own take on the issue out in the public discourse and work it as a product differentiator. Don't like what SOE is doing with their approach to gaming? Hey, come play Mythic's games, we don't do that lame shit here!
3. In the end, I don't think this is as big an issue as Mark makes it out to be. For YEARS people have been saying "Why don't we
4. If the experiment is a success, then Mythic will still see success in its role catering to those people with different tastes, and SOE will grow their business by catering to the players Mythic doesn't want. If the experiment fails, the exposure to SOE is going to be limited to only those few servers, even if some horrible legal decision costs them big bucks, and Mythic can capitalize on any fallout from SOE's weakened position in the marketplace.
Bruce
I wonder how long it will take for governments to get in on the action? After all, if you're selling something for real-world dollars, then a local jurisdiction can tax it.
:-)
Where are the servers located?
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.