Slashdot Mirror


Boycott the Gold Farmers?

Next Generation is running an editorial penned by former PC Gamer Editor-In-Chief Gary Whitta, wherein he calls on gamers to shut down gold farmers. From the article: "PCG's refusal to accept their advertising is a bold first step toward suffocating these reprobates. But it won't do the job completely: there will always be less-scrupulous outlets who won't be so picky about where their ad dollars come from. The only way to really cut off gold farmers at the knees is not by refusing to take their money, but by refusing to give it to them. And that responsibility falls to you, the community of players they target."

10 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Competitive feature of the game? by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't play any game that has an endless money supply in it -- I don't think there are any games yet that have a fixed amount of commodities in the gaming world, but I'd appreciate seeing it. It would really make people strive to earn (or steal or barter) their "income" online.

    That being said, isn't the gold farmer there specifically because it does reduce the most boring part of the game? I think this is exactly what the game needs to prove that the money situation is broken. If money is so easy to get by "farming" it, it means the gaming companies need to come up with a new way to handle the situation of money (preferably by fixing the amount available and only allowing more of it through mining or what not). I'd even say dump the gold-is-the-only-money idea entirely, and fix commodities based on the amount of PC players rather than the amount of NPCs in a game. This will let other commodities find value as a bartering mechanism.

    I don't see the reason for ignoring something valuable such as the gold farmer -- if it saves YOU time, then it is worth the cost. Money is a store of time, nothing more. If something saves you time, you give them your money (stored time) in exchange. Someone elsewhere in the world is willing to do your dirty work, compensate them if you can't do it yourself.

    1. Re:Competitive feature of the game? by TexVex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think there are any games yet that have a fixed amount of commodities in the gaming world, but I'd appreciate seeing it.

      Ultima Online did early on. People hoarded. The system broke. It sounds good in theory, but there are too many variables you can't easily account for in practice. What about the guy who has a nice collection of some commodity, then doesn't log in for six months? Do you release his supply back into the system? What about when he returns to the game -- is he screwed out of his stuff, or is his supply allowed to go over the limit? I think this is exactly what the game needs to prove that the money situation is broken. The situation needs deeper analysis. MMORPGs are a new layer on top of the RPG. Classically, the "economy" in an RPG is a combination of game world flavor, a way to inflate the game's play time, a flow controller (i.e. to prevent you from buying powerful high-level equipment too early), and a sub-game of decision-making about things like exactly how important it is to have the Uber Sword of Donkeylizard Slaying or if the Elite Sword of Donkeylizard Slaying is good enough.

      Single-player RPGs contain things look like economics but really aren't -- it's just part of the game.

      Early MMORPG designers built the game systems the same way, without giving much thought to how real economics were going to come into play. It's just a game, one that happens to be multiplayer, right? It's obvious to add in trading of stuff between players. But, as soon as you do that, a real economy emerges. The real one interacts strangely with the fake one built into the game world. The classical RPG economy has the hero being uber-rich by the end of the game, because accumulated money is just another scorecard. But when that useless stuff can be traded between players and the game is designed for all players to get steadily richer over time, then you end up with this huge disconnect between the value of money in terms of the game rules and the value of money between two players. A friend signs on, you give him a small fraction of all the excess money you've piled up, and that little gift allows him to never have to worry about gaining money in the game on his own.

      Money is a store of time, nothing more.

      In an MMO, currency has the dual role of being a scorecard in a sub-game, and being real currency for player-to-player transactions. On the game engine side, the system is immutable. On the human side, the value of the currency fluctuates constantly in response to uncountable things. It just doesn't work right. No matter how much you bandaid it.

      The key is to fix it so that the game engine "economics" adjust themselves dynamically in response to the real economics that happen as a result of player action. Ultima Online took a small step in that direction a few years back, when they made it so that NPCs would adjust their prices in response to player purchases and sellbacks. It was shown to be a successful experiment when, later, an NPC shopkeeper was placed in a dangerous and hard to access are of the game world. Players found it preferable to spend the gold they gained in that dungeon locally with that shopkeeper, because it was literally not worth their time to truck the loot back out for deposit into their bank accounts. Prices on that vendor skyrocketed to more than ten times the price for the same item in an easily accessible part of the world. They eventually stabilized when players began finding it worth their time to truck goods into that area specifically to sell to that vendor. That simple little change in game mechanics allowed actual economics to emerge in that game.

      On the whole, MMO developers aren't generally interested in playing with economic theories. They are much more interested in providing a fun play experience that is visually stunning. Experimentation with the basic game design is a Bad Thing because the results might be unknown and if you f

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    2. Re:Competitive feature of the game? by Swanktastic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Auction houses in Wow for instance, represent a capitalist economy with all the dynamics of supply and demand. That hardly eliminates gold farmers.

      No, the auction house represents a market system. Markets have been around since the dawn of civilization. Supply and demand is a market force, but not necessarily and indicator of capitalism. Socialist counties also have markets you know.

      Capitalism implies that the means of production (factories, farms, etc) are privately owned. WoW is definitely not capitalist in that there are no in game assets that produce income, AKA Capital.

  2. Wrong! by dsands1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "only way to really cut off gold farmers at the knees is not by refusing to take their money, but by refusing to give it to them."

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. The only way to really cut off gold farmers is for companies like blizzard to change the game such that there isn't so much focus on "gold". I don't like the idea of having to spend 3 months of farming herbs to be able to afford to buy an epic mount, hence i go buy gold to get the epic mount. If they made it based on completing quests we wouldn't have this issue? No gold necessary to get the epic mount. Just quests. The reason above is the only reason that I've yet bought money in an MMO.

    I agree there's a need for some currency to be used in MMOs, but the current implementation of it in games like WoW is the issue.

    --
    "What is the answer?" (Silence) "In that case, what is the question?" --Gertrude Stein
  3. Wow, how insightful. by Phanatic1a · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Okay, I can almost understand why somebody might want to buy gold to cut out some of the more boring aspects of play and get them to their epic mount that much more quickly. But that's not all that these sludge barons offer. Aside from gold, they'll sell you a ready-made level-60 character if you wish. Or they'll even take your low-level character and play it for you, without you ever having to lift a finger. Hey, why confine this practice to MMOs? Why not pay an experienced Counter-Strike player to rack up several thousand frags in your name to earn you a killer online rep? Oh, that's right -- because it defeats the whole point of playing the game in the first place.


    Here, I thought that the point of playing the game was to have fun.

    Clearly, nobody purchases fragging services in Counterstrike because that would not be fun. You'd be paying someone to play the game for you.

    Just as clearly, people do purchase gold from gold farmers because grinding for gold...isn't fun. Grinding faction isn't fun.

    The fact that gold farmers exist, the fact that leveling services exist, these things speak to deficiencies in the game design. There's this game, that people are paying millions each month to play, and yet on top of the monthly fee many of them feel that it is worth additional money to pay others to essentially play part of the game for them. Why? Because that part of the game isn't fun.

    If MMORPG designers want to eliminate farmers, they need to look at what parts of the game people are paying them to play, figure out why those parts of the game aren't fun, and change them to make the fun. Bitching about people who are willing to provide a service at a rate people are willing to pay is, like in every other aspect of life, silly.
  4. I admit it. by stlhawkeye · · Score: 4, Informative

    I buy gold off them and I'd do it again. It's stupid to spend 4 weeks farming gold or whatever when I buy that same amount of gold for $100, an amount of money I make in about 2 hours of work. For 4 weeks of mindless drudgery I could at least be getting paid about eight grand. Boycott nothing. If the game producers don't like people circumventing the grind, stop adding stupid grinds to games.

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
  5. Banning capitalism usually doesn't work by edremy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Farmers have a commodity. (Gold, high level character, etc) Other people want these commodities and have real money to spend. There's *going* to be a marketplace no matter what you, Blizzard or anyone else wants.

    I remember visiting a communist country back in the late 80s. We were deluged with requests from folks on the street to exchange money, buy our jeans and a dozen other transactions ranging from officially frowned on to downright illegal. We had something they wanted, and they'd break the law in a second to get it. Remember that most of the Chinese gold farmers are seriously poor by Western standards- this is a major step up the success ladder for them, and they don't even need to break any laws. just violate an agreement with a game company. The "War on Drugs" has utterly failed to stop drug sales despite endless "Just Say No" anti-drug messages and serious law enforcement. Here all we have is "Just Say No" and Blizzard banning a few accounts now and then.

    Ban capitalism at your peril- if things can be traded, there will be a marketplace.

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  6. Stop Making Lame ass Games by Thedeviluno · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah Gold farming will stop when good games are no longer dependant on time snks.

  7. Another reason by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There is another less-publicized reason why the MMORPG companies like Blizzard want to fight gold farmers. Gold farmers shorten the number of months someone is likely to play the game.

    While I don't have any studies to back me up, I would be willing to bet that someone who buys there way to the highest level and equipment plays the game a significantly shorter time than someone who earns their way to the top. The reason why is simple...it takes a serious amount of time to amass the gold that those guys do. If you cut out that time by paying a $50 or so, then thats a good month or two of subscription fees.

    When you start looking at things in terms of shortened subscriptions, you can see why companies like Blizzard are concerned. Of course, they probably make up for it by having the gold farmers just buy a new copy of the game every time they get banned.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  8. Re:Does anyone like Gold Farmers? by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like gold farmers. I have used them in the past and will use them in the future.

    I play games for fun- not as a second job. Farming for gold isn't fun. Its mind numbing, boring, tedious work. Yet due to flaws in game design, many MMOs require it. Since I don't like doing it, I'd rather pay someone else to do it for me, allowing me to skip directly to the parts which are fun. Its a win/win/win. The gold farmer gets cash, I get to have fun, and the game company continues to have me as a subscriber.

    You want to stop farming? STOP MAKING FLAWED GAMES THAT REQUIRE IT! Remove the god damned grind already. Get rid of uber items. Get rid of items that drop once a week or once a year. There you go- we now have no reason to farm, so we have no reason to buy gold. And the game is better as a result- you've removed a monotonous, repetitious bore from the game. Until the industry evolves away from the EQ idea of time sinks as content (hint to developers- no, its not), gold farming will live on, as its the only thing that makes the games playable.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?