Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SOE Station Exchange Launches

Posted by Zonk on from the crass-commercialism dept.

MMORPG.com reports that the experiment in Massive retail that is the Station Exchange has launched. From the article: "SOE recently concluded a two week pre-launch trial phase for Station Exchange. We only allowed a very small number of EQII players into the pre-launch in order to help us fine-tune the system and get feedback on the user experience. The service was live for pre-launch, which meant that all of the users were exchanging US dollars for the rights to use virtual goods, characters and coin within the game."

44 comments

  1. CLass division within the player base imminent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One class, with money to spare, will prosper. The other will play the "old fashioned way" and remain forever inferior. Hooray.

    1. Re:CLass division within the player base imminent by DigiWood · · Score: 1

      There has always been a class division between players. Before the division was those that play eight hours a day and those that play a few hours a week. The ones that play all day every day will have more in game items and currency than those that only play a few hours a week. Is it fair? That is debatable. People play for different reasons. For some it's to be better than everyone else. There is a certain amount of pride they feel being able to show off some great item they recently acquired. The people that see these items in game usually ask the age old questions: Where did you get it? How much do you want for it? Upon finding that they cannot get it themselves it comes down to the other player selling the item. Casual players don't have the in game currency to purchase the item. The may have the means to purchase it with real world currency. I think that SOE is doing the responsible thing here. Rather than a black market exist where people can get deceived SOE is providing a secure means for these transactions to occur.

      --


      Nothing is impossible. It just hasn't been figured out yet.
    2. Re:CLass division within the player base imminent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that the 'other' other class, the one with time to spare, will prosper regardless of online sales of virtual goods. The only remaining class, the one with neither time or money, is forced to play the "old fashioned way," is thus would have remained inferior despite all that. Nothing changes. Except people with extra cash part with it, and Sony gains. So what's the big deal?

  2. Their motto: by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you can't beat them, join them.

    1. Re:Their motto: by Achoi77 · · Score: 1

      You know while I was thinking about how this probably better for Sony to deal with online purchases, I did a quick read over the pre-launch stats. Of all the participants in the prelaunch, the average amount of money a player spent was roughly $14 in 2 weeks. That's almost $30 a month? And this is ON TOP of that monthly fee?? HOLY CRAP - I can't beleive it took Sony so long to jump on the bandwagon. I mean, if the average player is spending that much per month just on goods, shit man, sony should just throw out their monthly fee and watch their subscription rate skyrocket!

  3. Slight mistake by lurch_ss · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    which meant that all of the users were exchanging US dollars for the rights to use virtual goods, characters and coin within the game

    I think how that is supposed to read is:

    which meant that all of the losers^H^H^H^H^H^Husers were exchanging US dollars for the rights to use virtual goods, characters and coin within the game

  4. Lawsuits, here we come by Naerbnic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    SOE is setting themselves up for some major lawsuits. When all of this auctioning was under the table via eBay et. al, Sony had plausible deniability about the practice. If anyone complained that an item they bought was lost due to a server problem or was nerfed by the developers and thus negated their purchase, they could casually gesture towards their ELUA while simply saying "Not our problem."

    Now that it's been given the blessing of the powers that be, in game items are no longer in game items, but actual currency; they are commodities which people have put value into. Any actions by Sony which even whisper about a nerf to an item (or god forbid a rollback) will quite possibly be countered with lawsuits by individuals who have real money invested in the game. And since I'm sure the ELUA has been changed to allow the actions of Station Exchange, Sony has no way of completely looking the other way.

    --


    So there I was, juggling apples and small animals, when I accidentally bit into the wrong one...
    1. Re:Lawsuits, here we come by ReverendHoss · · Score: 1

      And unless they tied their legal team up for the six months prior to doing this, their attack-lawyers probably re-worded the EULA to cover their butts even with the Station Exchange.

      If one accepts that the wording of the EULA protects the company that writes it, then re-writing of the EULA to make sure it still protects it is both trivial and necessary.

    2. Re:Lawsuits, here we come by interiot · · Score: 1
      the users were exchanging US dollars for the rights to use virtual goods, characters and coin within the game
      The players don't OWN the items, they only have a license to use it. Since Sony still owns the items, and the license the players purchase probably has all kinds of lawerly caveats, there's probably not as much legal ground for lawsuits as you think.
      • you buy gold. dupe bug is found. virtual market collapses. not our fault, you can't sue us.
      • you buy weapon. find out weapon is cheaper from in-game auction house. caveat emptor, you can't sue us.
      • we realize you're just a bunch of whiney kids, but please, please... try to act like grown-ups. and don't sue us.
      • if you really feel strongly about it, and must sue us, you must first go through arbitration phase. Arbitrator will be Dorfunk located in the Nahor Highlands. Beware, the path is long and fraught with claws and large teeth.
    3. Re:Lawsuits, here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the studies saying that online item trading is a billion dollar business, how could these companies NOT get into the racket. Even with the risks involved, there is some serious bank to be had.

    4. Re:Lawsuits, here we come by Naerbnic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course it's just a licence, but that wouldn't stop someone from making the argument of damages. They spent real money in an officially sanctioned way to get an item which can be traded back for real money via the same channel. If Sony does something which would hurt the tradeback value of the item, a damages suit could occur (not necessarily win, but at least be filed against them). This is not entirely unlike people suing because others did something to "nerf" their real-estate values. Of course, this is a horrible analogy.

      Furthermore, since I think Sony is planning on this being a new cash cow, they're going to be very, very careful about what they change in-game. Even if their ELUA states that they can do something, the fear of bad publicity will probably cause them to think twice before they do it. If people start complaining on message boards and blogs about how Sony screwed them over, Station Exchange will feel the pain. While this may or may not be a big problem, it is going to make them a lot slower to actually rebalance unbalanced things which in the end hurts the gameplay. Seems like one heck of a sticky situation.

      --


      So there I was, juggling apples and small animals, when I accidentally bit into the wrong one...
    5. Re:Lawsuits, here we come by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      If they can change the EULA to accomodate the Exchange, they can also change it to say they're immune from lawsuits that could arise from it. Keep in mind, you can't get to the Exchange without agreeing to the EULA before even entering to the game.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    6. Re:Lawsuits, here we come by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but I still smell lawsuits (remember, in the US, anyone can sue for anything... don't sue me for saying it).

      The problem with the new system is that there is real money being used. Wether or not the wording of the EULA clearly states the intent of the system to allow exchange while not guaranteeing value related to the purchase, people will still get up in arms when their new weapon has been nerfed by a patch and no longer retains any value ingame.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    7. Re:Lawsuits, here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are an attorney & have a law degree?

      What I have noticed about you, interiot? Is that you are a big bullshit artist and blowhard.

      I doubt it you actually have a degree in, or practice law, so shut up dumbo.

      You are one of the biggest morons at this site and have the intelligence of a carrot.

      Especially on technical information regarding computers.

    8. Re:Lawsuits, here we come by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >If one accepts that the wording of the EULA
      >protects the company that writes it, then re-
      >writing of the EULA to make sure it still
      >protects it is both trivial and necessary.

      That assumes that whatever you write there is permited according to your countries law. Most countries have consumer sales laws that govern sales of goods, services and most such things, and typically you can't set those aside through contracts. Hence you can't cover yourself for everything, nor do whatever you want. DOn't like it? Don't sell!!

    9. Re:Lawsuits, here we come by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >If they can change the EULA to accomodate the
      >Exchange, they can also change it to say they're
      >immune from lawsuits that could arise from it.
      >Keep in mind, you can't get to the Exchange
      >without agreeing to the EULA before even
      >entering to the game.

      YOu can't just immunize yourself versus the law since very often (at least in consumer related issues in most countries) the law applies regardless of what you agree to.

    10. Re:Lawsuits, here we come by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      Oddly, since you click on "I Agree", you're actually indicating your agreement with the EULA contents. Have fun defending against it.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    11. Re:Lawsuits, here we come by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Oddly, since you click on "I Agree", you're
      >actually indicating your agreement with the EULA
      >contents. Have fun defending against it.

      What part of my post did you not understand? If there is some law that says certain conditions can't be changed through a contract, then it doesn't matter what you agree to. This is often the case in many consumer related issues such as as sales of goods and services in many countries that set certain minimum conditions that apply and that can't be changed to the worse for the consumer through contract. In addition, many countries, for example in EU have laws against "unfair" terms in consumer contracts. The law and court cases works out what is and is not unfair. In such cases, again, it doesn't mater of you agree to something or not, since the law says such terms are not valid.

  5. Bad idea... by Psmylie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    They're moving one giant step closer to assigning real-world value to virtual items/currency. Now, if someone makes their living buying/selling virtual goods, how does that make it all that different then the stock market? Except that SoE has complete control over this market. I just wonder how long it will be before the first lawsuit is filed, should Sony nerf someone's best-selling item. And I wonder if the SEC is going to get involved at some point :)

    Also, if real value is assigned to a character, what happens if SoE attempts to ban them? They may say that they still own all "virtual" property, but if someone bought the character "officially", then that person may have a good basis for a lawsuit.

    --

    psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    1. Re:Bad idea... by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

      It's not entirely like the stock market; when's the last time someone hacked the stock market and duped or removed some stocks? It's a REALLY bad idea because of its fundamental lack of security.

      --
      I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    2. Re:Bad idea... by Psmylie · · Score: 1
      The 1930's (j/k :)

      I was just trying to say that this is a new market, and completely unregulated. I think SOE may get a nasty shock if some governments suddenly decide that this needs to be regulated.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    3. Re:Bad idea... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      So what, you could say that an MP3 is a virtual item as well yet it may of required less effort to make than a supa-sword or the like on an MMORPG. Work should be rewarded even if we do not like the methods some use to make objects of value.

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
    4. Re:Bad idea... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Work does not need to be rewarded but if a particular kind of work has proven demanded on the market it has a value according to the laws of supply and demand. Making a film won't make people pay you, selling it on the market and people buying it will. An MP3 that's available for free on the web won't fetch much on the market.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:Bad idea... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Google for Naked Shorts. It happens all the time and is currently being checked into by the SEC.

    6. Re:Bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this another one of your anti-semetic conspiracy theories, Djewhater?

  6. Psycho-Capitalistic Wet Dream Brainwash. by torpor · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sheesh. It costs them nothing to manufacture these goods, but boy are they sure going to profit from the sale and exchange of them.

    Doesn't it strike anyone else odd that this popularization of video gaming is a definite kind of legalized, socially tolerated brainwashing? Is the fact that its a wide open public service overshadowing the reality that, in fact, people are being conned out of thousands of dollars for non-real objects which cost *nothing* to manufacture, and that they're simply doing it in order to participate in wild fantasies, escaping from the reality of the world?

    Titor was right; the future is going to look at this era with grand disdain, a lazy unproductive self-centered culture. One can only hope, anyway...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:Psycho-Capitalistic Wet Dream Brainwash. by AutopsyReport · · Score: 1
      It's similiar to pornography -- money for fantasy, but at least there's no degradation to females here. Sure, both are avenues for fantasy-seeking with no tangibles when you reach the end of that road, but I can think of much worse things that people do to satisfy intangible fantasies.

      people are being conned out of thousands of dollars for non-real objects which cost *nothing* to manufacture

      Not at all. These people pay because they want to and can afford it. They've made a conscious decision to purchase items instead of spend their time. It's no different than me paying a mechanic to rebuild my engine. Though I can do it myself, it would take me significantly longer. And the savings in time is worth more to me than the upfront cost of repairs.

      I don't know how you think they are being conned here. They aren't being conned in the sense of believing "there's no way I can obtain this without buying it". In fact, they aren't being conned in any way. I really do not see anything wrong with a system like this. If there's a need, meet it.

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    2. Re:Psycho-Capitalistic Wet Dream Brainwash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people pay because they want to and can afford it. They've made a conscious decision to purchase items instead of spend their time. .. so its not much different than, say .. scientology .. for instance ..

    3. Re:Psycho-Capitalistic Wet Dream Brainwash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sheesh. It costs them nothing to manufacture these goods, but boy are they sure going to profit from the sale and exchange of them."

      Well, wait a moment. It costs them money to maintain the server, retain staff, and otherwise all the upkeep that goes into running an MMO. So its not exactly like printing money.

      Personally, I am all for this service. They might not have invented kryptonite for the entire set of catasses, but they can at least take out the subset of catasses that are wealthy and place them on their own (quarantined) server.

      I'm just glad SOE are the dumbasses to try this first. I can't wait until the lawsuits start to roll in: you know they will, because someone rich enough to spend money on imaginary items is probably rich enough to hire lawyers. Hopefully then companies that know how to run Planetside and SWG can try to buy them out.

    4. Re:Psycho-Capitalistic Wet Dream Brainwash. by EddieBurkett · · Score: 1
      people are being conned out of thousands of dollars for non-real objects

      When someone pays admission to a theme park, what *real* object are they getting? When someone pays to watch a movie, what *real* object are they getting? Although the costs to manufacture/maintain are vastly different, people have been participating in "wild fantasies" and "escaping from the reality of the world" for a while now. Its the same concept behind why people buy books; they aren't looking to purchase a bunch of bound pages.

      --
      The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
    5. Re:Psycho-Capitalistic Wet Dream Brainwash. by torpor · · Score: 1

      When someone pays admission to a theme park, what *real* object are they getting?

      Access to real private property.

      When someone pays to watch a movie, what *real* object are they getting?

      Access to real private property.

      Its the same concept behind why people buy books; they aren't looking to purchase a bunch of bound pages.

      So I can buy and read a book without experiencing the physical nature of it?

      I am interested in your kool-aid^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnewsletter and would like to know more ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    6. Re:Psycho-Capitalistic Wet Dream Brainwash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'll happily pay $10 for 90 mins of access to private property, you're welcome to come and hang out in my basement. Bring your friends. I'll be selling you huge sodas and popcorn for $5 each.

  7. Overall problems by Nytewynd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I really worry about the overall problems this causes for a game. Now that we have an economic gain to the company for the sale of items, does that company increase the drop rate of rare items to increase their own portion of the revenue?

    Imagine how bad that could get. You could have dupes not being fixed because they would lose money. There would be incentive for people to camp the best spawns for profit, thereby preventing people from fighting those mobs for fun. This might turn out just like FFXI, where the only way to get a good item was literally to buy it online.

    This has to be the worst executive decision for a game that I've seen.

    --
    /. ++
    1. Re:Overall problems by generic-man · · Score: 1

      People still buy Magic: The Gathering cards, right? When I stopped (~5 years ago) there was a fuss every time Wizards released some new expansion that either resurrected an old card or introduced a new card that completely threw the secondhand-card market into disarray. People played nonetheless. Apparently getting screwed out of your money is an integral part of fantasy gaming.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    2. Re:Overall problems by Nytewynd · · Score: 1

      I remember that happening. I spent like $20 to get a Clone and then it got released again. At least I got another one in a foil pack.

      --
      /. ++
    3. Re:Overall problems by Loether · · Score: 1

      Increasing the Drop rate or allowing dupes would lead to inflation. Just as if a country decided to print more money. Prices would rise. The money would be able to buy less.

      For exmaple lets say there are 10 pieces of platinum in the entire game and each piece at auction sells at a price of $2. So the total Realworld value of the game economy would be $20.

      If the game devs decided to double the available platinum then the real world value of each piece would be cut in half. so now there are 20 peices of platinum but the buyers and sellers are still only willing to invest $20 real world dollars. So they will now only pay $1 per platinum.

      Now I agree that's bad for the buying player. But it would not generate more money for the exchange. Which is why I belive the devs will strive to keep the game / real world economy stable.

      But only time will tell how they handle it.

      --
      TODO create witty sig.
  8. hmm by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Funny

    As an EQ2 player, this seems like a great way to find which users should be banned for being idiots.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:hmm by Nytewynd · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think that any item bought this way should be indentified on the item. Either change the color of the item or at the least put a note on the description.

      Also, I think players that sell any items should have their name colored one way to identify that they may be a farmer and/or ninja. Anyone that buys an item should have their name colored another distinct color to identify them as an idiot.

      --
      /. ++
    2. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're making new servers were this exchange can only take place. So technically, anyone who moves there is willing to buy/sell.

    3. Re:hmm by KillShill · · Score: 1

      sort of like a person who plays mmorpgs, should have their foreheads stamped with a giant S... for stupid if you didn't get it.

      how about we stop cheating online first. that'll clear up 99.9% of the "farmers".

      frankly, if you spend money on an account and you are physically in front of the computer 12-16 hours a day, you have a right to sell the items. what you don't have a right to do is cheat .bots are cheats, a violation of the TOS. exploits/bugs etc are cheats (hell, even worse, since it can cause server and economic instability).

      let's see how many people will still "Farm" when they have to be physically present and develop RSI/carpal tunnel syndrome.

      just prevent cheating... that'll fix up MMORPGs in no time flat.

      you still can sell and buy items... but who'll sell an item it took them a month or whatever to obtain... and for how much? see, it discourages even casual selling.

      it'll be a moot issue but the greedy companies want to continue this practice... shafting their honest customers at the expense of the (relatively) few cheaters/exploiters.

      fuck em, i say.

      that's why i stopped playing online. every a**hole and their dog run bots/cheat/curse/ruin your fun/etc. single player is far more preferable for me now... in fact, i have an enormous disdain for anything multiplayer.

      maybe in the very far future, when anonymity is completely eliminated... and we've list all our rights online, then i can consider MP again.... or maybe i'll just read a good book... the kind made from paper, regarded as an antique.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
  9. I personally find this all very ironic... by dsands1 · · Score: 1

    ...seeing as SOE perma-banned me and a couple of my friends for trying to sell our Jedi on EBAY back in early 2004.

    Now they're providing the means and methods for doing exactly the same thing, and the rat bastards are even making a profit from it!!! Freaking ballwashing hypocrites!

    --
    "What is the answer?" (Silence) "In that case, what is the question?" --Gertrude Stein
    1. Re:I personally find this all very ironic... by gdulli · · Score: 1

      Their customer support has to deal with a flood of complaints about scams resulting from offsite trading. It causes them a lot of grief. If they want to provide the service but only on their own site where they can prevent scamming and the related customer service nightmare, that's neither hypocritical nor ironic.

  10. E-Bay, IGE & co, lawsuits? by Andr0s · · Score: 1

    Well, I'd say this, at least for me, raises a positively interesting issue: In the past, SOE, as well as other MMORPG companies, swung or at least tried to swing the bat at people trading in-game services, items or characters for real-life money. (Examples: Lineage 2 was completely rendered useless and unplayable due to massive numbers of item and money farmers, World of Warcraft is facing the same issue in rizing proportions). In past, SOE has likewise threatened, or actively enforced, measures -against- such activities.

    Now, suddenly, SOE flips the coin on its other side and not only allows the trading they alleged to be fighting in the past, but actually provides in-game service & interface allowing players to trade so. What happens, then, to all the players SOE banned in the past for buying/selling money, items, characters etc? [rightcheous] Is this another display of the facetous 'It's alright to do it, but only if we're ones doing it' attitude that seems to prevail in the world?[/rightcheous]


    Disclaimer: I am a MMORPG player. I strongly believe that trading of in-game 'goods' for real-life money leads only to propagation of 'farming' on the game, which in turn results in reduced/ruined playability for people who play to have fun, instead of earning their bread. Go and try to "Kill 50 Demons" for a quest when a dozen farming characters sit in the area 24/7 farming those same demons because of their above-average loot tables?

    --
    '...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
  11. It's good for the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Sony mmorpgs should be avoided at all cost since they suffer so greatly from marketing department tactics.

    Ironically this is actually better for the game, it is limited to two servers for the people that enjoy it while the rest of the servers get less ebay characters.

    Some compensation is needed for the people that got banned for selling though.