Erm, no. You really need to take (or re-take) a logic course. That your information doesn't support your conclusion in no way means the conclusion it does support is identical. I assure you, we have far from identical opinions.
See my grandparent: "they occupy totally different niches". the iPod is not designed for people who care to much about technology, features or music quality.
Yes, yes; so you say. All I see, though, is an attempt here that reflects precisely the opposite. Why are they trying to go after the features that an iPod boasts if they're not trying to compete in the same markets? If you are right, then it just points to even worse mismanagement in the product marketing and development departments. Forgive me for not giving my money to a company with such a device, or not spending my time adding features to it for the mere chance at a few bucks.
This is were I have a problem with your argument. Yes, maybe Neuros and other `also-rans' as you call them should have offered this feature earlier. But you seem to be moaning that they are now trying to include the feature or "screaming they can't provide what people want" as you call it.
And the problem is . . . ? As the saying goes: too little, too late. Stop copying! Certainly don't form a contest around something you lack that is named after the market leader! If you were serious about the "niche" point, then there are all manner of things they could introduce that their target market wants that isn't done by other players. This contest, though, is just too much of a desperate $1000 "me too" to reasonably stomach.
Interestingly I know an iPod owner who told me he wished he bought a Neuros or another brand I can't remember the name of, because they have the features he really needed (as opposed to the features of the iPod which many consider fads--podcasting probably comes under that for a lot of people).
I'm not sure what your point is. You friend is an ignorant consumer? Nobody in their right mind sees an iPod as a do-it-all device. If he needed recording, or whatever else the iPod isn't doing, he should definitely have bought something else. But, and the market demonstrates this, just because something records sound doesn't make it a particularly good music library player. Same goes for FM, OGG, and any number of other features that manufacturers bullet trying do seem "better" when the buyers mostly sift through it and decide it is simply "different", and unless "different" means "a whole lot better" it means "worse".
By your argument then Linux and Open Office are a total waste as well.
Yeah, pretty much. More importantly, though, neither of those are trying to bait a non-community with cash prizes. Both of those projects are expanded because someone either wants an improvement, or pays for an improvement. Can you name any successful open source effort that dangles a carrot of possible cash in front of it?
The whole idea behind open source is to add features to your hardware. Frankly if I had a Neuro I would be interested in trying to win it.
You support my point. Instead of doing it because you want the feature, you'd be doing it because you want the money. That is totally out of character for the "whole idea behind open source", and additionally misses the mark for the origin of podcasting in the first place. The move by Neuros is a form of astroturfing; there is no real community interest, but Neuros is trying to sell this lottery ticket as an incentive for somebody, anybody to care about their stuff.
Podcasting is not all that hard.
That's what I'd be inclined to believe, too, but here we have Neuros broadcasting that they can't do it, and that it's worth at least a grand to them if someone else could get it done. It's becoming tiresome to have to constantly point out the inconsistency you yourself are mindful enough to mention.
This would make a great project for some high school or college kid.
No, it wouldn't. Most kids are already in the high percentage of iPod users, so they already have podcasting. If they just want the money, there are easier ways to make a grand. Drugs and prostitution come to mind, both of which can be done while listening to music!
What I do not get is the venom and negative attitude. Are you Steve Jobs?
Nope. The reason you don't get the negativity is that you're mired in thinking that this has anything to do with the iPod. Hell, my own iPod (1st Gen with the physical wheel) broke years ago when I tried to use it too much as a HD and it overheated. I haven't bothered to replace it, although I'd probably drop $100 on a shuffle (which would be less likely to overheat) if I saw one in stock anywhere. No, the negativity has to do with the bad business plan that involves baiting developers with prizes instead of actually having a product that encourages community development all on its own. That the iPod is kicking everyone's ass at that is merely incidental to that market. My opinion would be the same for any product in any market that takes the same approach.
So, as I understand it, you are suggesting that the fact that they are using a very efficient and open method to recruit developers for features to add to their free software means they must be desperate and thereby stupid.
Yeah, pretty much.
This is utter nonsense. The same clearly invalid argument could be used against software or computers (or science, technology or any attempt by humanity to do anything) in general: because one uses computers, science, &c as a tool to get things done quickly and efficiently, one must not be able to do things without using them, therefore one is stupid.
Yeah, pretty much. I think you're really reaching with the analogies, though. Try to stay on topic and address the actual actions of Neuros. I'm not exactly sure what they're trying to be, but it is not "efficient", "open", "intelligent", or "the best". If they were any of those, they would already have a product people want more than an iPod instead of desperately holding a contest to find an external talent pool to do their jobs for them.
But, getting back to your analogy for a second: just because you use technology it doesn't make you smarter, quicker, or more efficient. An idiot with a new tool is still an idiot, and Neuros trying to compete with the iPod like this (even reduced to calling it podcasting themselves!) is an idiot move. If it looks like genius to you, well, intelligence is a relative thing . . .
The iPod is a very basic MP3 player--I have a tiny Creative player for about £50 that does more--which is mainly an accesory to iTunes--its USP is its integration with Apple's software. The Neuros is a proffesional player/recorder/encoder/decoder/FM transmitter/receiver/&c which supports loads of encodings, &c and is basically a free-software-based portable computer.
You support my point. All the also-rans are trying to pretend they're superior because they have feature X or price Y. Like them, you neglect to notice that most people aren't interested in those features! They're interested in what the iPod offers, including the sheer simplicity. People also want things like podcasting, and here Neuros is practically screaming they can't provide what people want! It's all rather funny.
Since it looks to me as if the offer the SDK free I do not see the complaint. The podcast software for the Ipod was done for free.
But as the most popular player, people had an iPod already for "podcasting" to be created in the first place. Who has, or even lusts after, a Neuros? It appears to be an also-ran that is going to join all the other also-rans that Apple is laughing at. It's going to take a lot more than a free SDK to interest people.
They are offering a grand for someone to do an open source program for their product. Seems like a nice bit of cash and fame for somebody.
Fame? It'll be, at best, a footnote effort on their web site. How could they possibly put a good spin on it? "Yeah, you know that 'podcasting' thing that was named after the iPod because they started it years ago; well now you can do that with our player, too, because someone outside the company had more time than sense!" As I said, $1000 as "a nice bit of cash" is a drop in the bucket compared to what effort it almost certainly will take, because otherwise, Neuros would have just done it themselves.
Now what you could try to argue is that it's a publicity stunt to get the Neuros name out there. Really, though, what are they publicizing except features their player lacks? And if nobody cares enough to do the job for them, what does that say about their player. There are so many wrong turns this could have that anyone with half a brain is staying far, far away.
So what they are basically doing is offering $1000 to a contract worker to develope their project, but making it out as a competition and the pay is a prize. Genius.
Seems pretty dumb on all sides to me. What it says to me is that Neuros thinks their stuff is so hard to use that they'd give $1000 to someone who could actually pull this off. That also says that $1000 is what it is worth to them; clearly they know it will take even more effort or they would have just developed it in-house. So they're tasking developers far and wide, all who have to shell out for the Neuros in the first place, to do a big project for little money. I'm not sure anyone involved could ever call themselves a "winner" . . .
They have the greatest consumer-level desktop environment in the world, but they're not pushing it at all. It's as if they're relying solely on word-of-mouth advertising.
It actually makes the most sense if you think about it. Desktop computers are complex, even a Mac. There is no way you can say in 30 seconds why to buy one. The iPod is a special-purpose device, so it's a lot easier to get a campaign going for it. Music provides a great "sizzle" for Apple, but a review of their "steak" is best gotten elsewhere.
Oh, I totally agree. But like you said, it'd take a whole lot of compromising to get it to work, and I just don't see that as being feasible.
You know, I would have said the same thing a few years ago about getting all the major record labels lined up for online distribution.
Do you really think a cell phone company is going to give up $3.95 every 90 days in exchange for a sharing agreement with Apple's 10 cents per song?
Maybe not willingly, but there are all kinds of ways they can stick fees to the less intelligent. What about a $4.95/month iTMS access charge? I mean, sure, the phone is Apple's hardware and the user could just use iTunes to transfer all their songs, but we're talking ringtone buyers here. They'd pay it because $5 is nothing to them compared to the ability to grab any song they want on the go. There are all sort of other value-added services that can come with having a well-connected iPhone.
Do you think Jobs would adopt the cellphone carriers' pricing scheme for songs downloaded to the Applephone? Do you think customers would go for that? I sure don't.
That's sheds light on exactly how Apple has to approach it: without bowing to the carriers. Just like they said "$.99 for every song" to the music labels, they make a similarly straightforward proposal to the cell companies. If they had a good enough phone to back it up, the users would clamor for the providers smart enough to get onboard. Apple is still the underdog in the driver's seat.
I don't know about the USA, but in England it has long been held that a manufacturer of a kitchen knife cannot be held responsible for a murder carried out using the knife.
In the USA, we use guns to irresponsibly kill each other. Only in rural and/or southern regions does the concept of a special "kitchen gun" make sense. Now you know!
Computers should be a tool to help people, not require them to learn a new language just to communicate with them.
But you're wrong, and that's precisely why people are crapping on the idea. You do have to learn a new language, and it is just different enough from English to piss you off. A bug in a formal programming language makes sense to the programmer because we can internalize the syntax and semantics of it, but we already have internalized the broader semantics of English such that the accepted syntactic subset will likely be interpreted different than is expected. It's the development equivalent of the uncanny valley. It seems like a good idea, but it's only going to make things worse before it makes things better.
No, I said the economy in which they live. In other words, the economy in which we live. Nothing to do with the actual game.
Then I've lost your point. There is nothing that distinguishes "their" economy from "our" economy. The issue at hand is foreign economies like WoW presents. Perhaps a better parallel is how much less I care about cricket or rugby players. Not only does their play not interest me, their contributions to my economy is limited by an independent exchange rate. Same holds true for the value of play in the WoW economy.
Huh? Weren't you trying to make a point about "the love of the game?"
Yes; your point seems lost again. What does Bonds' love of the game have to do with your mage?
Because what they're doing is disruptive to other players. It's a matter of consideration.
Rubbish. It's simple competition for available resources. Am I being inconsiderate if I get a job we both apply for? Oh no, I've been "disruptive" of your ability to contribute to the "real" economy! Please . . .
OK, wait a second. You're trying to tell me that you think an account suspension in a game is more damaging than the murder of a loved one because the loved one's possessions are redistributed afterwards?
Yes, in the bloody game. Why you're not getting the distinction is beyond me. You're treating the virtual border between your country and WoW as though it is abstractly different than the border between your country and any other foreign country. From the perspective of economic trade, it is not.
I don't take a character's perspective because I am not a level 52 mage. That's a fictional character in a game that I play for fun, and to say that the in-game world of WoW and real life are anything similar to each other is, in my humble opinion, rather delusional.
Empathy is delusional? Again, it's all about the principles. The game is virtual in the same way you will never meet virtually 99.99% of the world's population. Which would matter more to you, the loss of your own mage or the death of thousands (e.g. the tsunami disaster) you will never know? Odds are your knee-jerk reaction is to say the "real" disaster victims, but the reality is that your game play affects you more than many aspects of the real world, including distant disasters. So, yeah, it may sound a bit delusional to care about abuse of power in a virtual world, but I do because my principle is to care about abuse in any world.
You seem to think that whatever is physically possible is acceptable behavior, whereas I feel that people have a responsibility to behave in a civilized manner, regardless of whether their environment is conducive to bad behavior.
More correctly, I think that whatever is physically possible is eventual behavior. Whether or not I find it acceptable doesn't matter; it will happen and I'd be a fool not to properly plan for it to happen. Only Blizzard has the power to keep it from happening, done by changing the game, yet their approach is to act after the fact in a harsh and apparently irreversible way. That is inexcusable.
I reiterate that this is a game, and not an economic or ecological sandbox.
That you draw a distinction is where you go wrong. Consider that all the complaints here are precisely issues of economy and ecology that you claim the game is nothing about. They may not be worded exactly as such, and you may actively refuse to acknowledge such elements in a game, but the competition for limited resources is there and can be dealt with using the same abstractions.
You say Blizzard has established an exchange rate; I say that it was established by those trying to trade virtual gold for US dollars, a practice that the game's creators have prohibited.
You are wrong. The obvious measure is simple: can you play the game for free? Blizzard's fees establish a connecti
Ha ha ha! Good one! You, who've been going on and on about the virtues of the free market, now say that Blizzard, a public company funded by voluntary subscription payments from customers, is somehow "without accountability".
You are confusing two issues. Corporate accountability is about actions in this economy; that they have. Character accountability is about actions in their game; that they don't have. What accountability do they have if they axed an account that wasn't a gold farmer? There is no court to appeal to. Hell, there may even be no record that the character ever existed. They control everything in game. They can make you vanish and not answer to anyone. Understand?
The fact is that gold-farmers make the game less fun for most players.
The fact is that gold farming is deemed acceptable by Blizzard. What is not deemed acceptable is selling farmed goods at market, an action that occurs entirely outside the game.
Their very presence disrupts gameplay for the customers who pay the bills to keep the servers humming.
Are the farmers not paying their bills? If not, then that is the reason to cut them off. If they're simply playing Blizzard's game as Blizzard wants (hint: they are!), then they are not influencing the gameplay at all. Blizzard can fix the gameplay if they wanted to; booting certain farmers doesn't accomplish that.
If Blizzard either ignores/condones gold-farmers, or undercuts their business by selling gold themselves, they will be cutting their own throat.
Not at all true. First, again, they already condone gold farming. Hell, most gameplay probably rests firmly on the grounds of the farming economy created by Blizzard, it's just that most people move on to other parts of the game while the farmers are content to work the same piece of land. So the issue is selling gold. The fact is, Blizzard already establishes an exchange rate because they charge to play the game. So gold prices reflect the cost to buy into the game and the cost to pay someone to play the game and farm the gold. Could I hire someone to play my own account for me to gather that gold? That certainly seems OK according to the TOS. So why should it be wrong to pay for gold similarly gathered with another valid account? The only issue, then, with Blizzard selling gold themselves is where that gold comes from, because if they'd just dump money into the game then, yes, their actions devalue the currency.
And WoW is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. Many things are. Running a democracy takes a significant expenditure of effort on the part of everyone involved. It makes sense when it comes to protecting inalienable human rights, but I don't have that kind of time to keep tabs on what Blizzard is doing.
The funny thing is, your position is probably the most agreeable opposition I've seen. Everyone else is trying to defend Blizzard as being right, but you nail it by saying they don't have have to be fair and they don't have to care if I think they're behaving badly. That would be a chilling admission for most playing the game (which seems to be where all the defenders are coming from), but I've got no investment in Blizzard doing bad things with WoW. If the players want to cheer them on, so be it.
The economy in which sports stars (and we) live is vitally important to our everyday life.
Are you fucking kidding me!? What does it matter if the Bulls beat the Nicks (or whatever)? Just because they broadcast that shit on the news doesn't make it matter. Same can be said about the comings and going of movie stars. None of that is vitally important. There are huge economies surrounding it, but everyday life would get on just fine if those people weren't taking in huge money to entertain.
I value my level 52 mage, but not as much as I'm sure Barry Bonds values his paycheck.
Wrong analogy. The question is whether you value your mage more than you value Bonds. Hell, I value a disposable life in UT2004 more than I value the contributions of anyone playing in a spectator sport for boatloads of cash.
Now that's just silly. I don't sell gold, either.
Uh, but you do charge others for the time and effort you expend to accomplish some task, right? How again does that differ from these people charging others for the time and effort they expend to accomplish some task?
Comparing account suspension to summary execution is somewhat disingenuous, considering that the losses suffered in summary execution are orders of magnitude higher.
Exactly wrong. Someone gets killed in real life and they still have property or other valuables that can be used by friends and family. By all reports, Blizzard's actions froze everything about the accounts in question. I think what you were trying to say is that a killing in WoW is not a "real" killing, but that misses the point that it is a real killing from the character's perspective. You're not adopting a proper "in game" mentality to rationally discuss the ethical backdrop of their actions. You dehumanize everyone when you suggest that actions of foreign leaders can be brutal and unaccountable. You can try to handwave it all away with "it's just a game", but the principles remain the same.
History has shown time and again that when a situation allows one to gain at the expense of others, there are always people willing to do it.
I want you to reread your own words over and over until you realize why Blizzard's actions solve nothing.
As for examples, look at how workers were treated in the late 19th century under industry moguls such as Carnegie. Hell, look at the rampant present corruption in the current Bush administration.
Are you attempting to claim that either is a purely free market? Hell, you even make my point by flat out stating there's corruption.
How? Do you have any suggestions? I don't think that you could do much of anything that would have a profound effect without drastically altering the game.
I've already given suggestion (maybe not directly to you, but elsewhere), as have many other who have posted with this article. They need to create a real ecology and stop having things just spawn with gold all ripe for farming. You know what I'd like to see: extinctions. You fucking over feed on a species, and you're both in trouble. Yes, that drastically alters the game, but I think it alters it for the better. No more of things popping up out of thin air. Boy meets girl and, if you're part of that world (I mean really part of the game and not just mindless level grinding), then killing them means no spawn, and killing all the spawns eventually means the same thing.
In any case, it's a start, and I'd rather they do this in the interim than wait six months while they sit on their hands and develop a better solution.
It's not a start, it's a terrible misstep that they might not be able to fix. Do you have any reason to believe they are working on a better solution? And not even drastic change like I'd want, but simple things like adding a "reaper" to the game that hunts the hunters. I'm not going to pat them on the back unless t
The resources inside the game are NOT limited. Blizzard, with the push of a button, could multiply everyone's gold by 100 or 10000 percent- and avoid inflation by multiplying all the available buyable goods, too.
That does not support your point. By changing the granularity (whatever the order of magnitude) you do not change the economy. If they maintain a balance, where does your purported "NOT limited" come into play? Shall I take a guess at what your Econ101 grade was?
The game's "economy" is necessarily fake, because games are supposed to be fun, and navigating a real economy is not fun: it's work.
You're wrong. That you find it work says more about you than it does about economies. The reality is that their "fake" economy is making the game less fun because people are exploiting the system. That's what this whole bloody article is about!
The only reason there was any resource limitation in the WOW economy at all was at Blizzard's whim- the game designer thought players would have more fun if advancement was limited.
Wrong again. Resource limitations (and the way said resources are attained) make the game. Because they have chosen to badly implement that economy it makes the game less fun. You limit advancement because it's boring as hell to level up by doing nothing more than clicking an up arrow. But if these farmers can succeed in the game, then clearly there is much work that needs to be done by Blizzard in the "fun" department.
So don't act like Blizzard is a tyrant coming in and trying to push around the free market- because he created and sustained that market from the start.
What the hell are you talking about? The is no free market in WoW because the TOS prohibits it. All there is is a way for money to flow into the game via Blizzard. They selfishly thinks that's a good idea, but in reality it's isolationism and creates a less interesting world.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that the customer and Blizzard have some sort of egalitarian social contract.
Nope.
There is a TOS and banning accounts in violation of said TOS is standard operating procedure.
Yep.
So it's not as if Blizzard has done anything, but reinforce the fact that MMORPG's are not a productive use of Joe User's time by banning Joe User, and rendering his in game efforts to nothingness.
And there's the rub. By acting without accountability, they hold the threat that they'll kill any account and claim it was a TOS violation. In doing so, they make all accounts worthless and give players little reason to stick with WoW once the next hot game comes along or, hell, little reason for anyone to play the game in the first place. I'm certainly not going to constantly sink time and money into playing when they can just vanish me tomorrow. I'll stick with UT2004, where I'm assured of frequent death and spawn camping without all the needless gnashing of teeth about it.
On a tiny, relatively low resolution display. No thanks.
What about tiny with no display? That is, podcasting (or whatever the hell you want to call it) news the same way you might use an audiobook. I suppose you could use a player with a display to make things easier, but bare bones like an iPod shuffle should work just as well. Start playing a story and skip on to the next one if something doesn't interest you. Papers would have to more directly compete with the likes of radio in doing so, but text-to-speech and user-directed search of content sure opens up some really interesting possibilities.
I refer you to an excerpt from one of your previous posts on the subject:
The key phrase you should have absorbed is "they won't understand why". Your doom mistakenly suggests it's at the hands of farmers, when in reality it is at the hands of Blizzard, who are unknowingly cutting their own throats. It doesn't seem like anyone is getting that, and I'm getting tired of repeating it.
But in the meantime, I'd love to see some heads roll. These people deserve it.
How would you know? I don't think Blizzard has release any details on their action. You have absolutely no idea everyone whose account was cancelled actually deserved it. Again, the solution should be to balance the economy properly, and not simply kill off people who thrive in the situation that Blizzard has created. We all offhandedly say we'd like to see heads roll from time to time, but that doesn't mean we fire off 1000 shots, or expect anyone else to do it without due process, either. That is exactly the objectionable action that Blizzard has taken, and people need to stop defending them.
The problem with arguments like yours is that WoW is a game. It's supposed to be fun. I don't frankly give a rat's ass whether someone can profit enormously from it. If that's what you're looking to do, you're playing the wrong game.
Nice rhetoric, but entirely disingenuous. Everyone spouting "just a game" needs to immediately go in and wipe out all their characters. If you are unwilling to do that, if you value what you've created, I don't even want to hear that we should be treating it differently. It like the old argument that sports stars should be in it for the love of the game and not the dough; say it all you like, but economic forces dictate that they can draw millions for game play. Is it really so wrong to point out similar forces in a MMORPG?
The issue is that when the stakes get high enough (in any economy), people turn into unethical assholes.
Maybe, but I don't see you running around shooting people dead. I mostly don't even see government agents acting with such disregard. Yet that is exactly how Blizzard is behaving, and far too many are giving them a pat on the back for it. It's kind of funny that nobody has at least tried to argue that Blizzard's dictatorship is benevolent. You all seem to be attacking on economic grounds, which is just about the weakest position to take on this.
The problem with purely free markets is that a large percentage of people tend to end up getting treated like shit. Which sucks in real life, but that's an entirely separate issue.
Totally untrue. What you're probably alluding to is more corruption and not purely free markets like you claim. If you can't give an example, I must assume you're just making stuff up here. You shouldn't do that, because it weakens your argument as a whole.
Do you want to have to work around Chinese sweatshop grunts perpetually camping the enemy that you have to kill for a quest?
You're missing the big picture. Blizzard is quite able to fix their bloody game so that camping is not economically advantageous. Instead, they are arbitrarily killing accounts. If you're not comfortable with any other governing body doing that kind of thing, you should not be comfortable with Blizzard doing it.
Is your right to make money in the virtual world of Azeroth more important than the desire of a vast majority of their subscribers to just have a fun, balanced game to play? I don't think it is.
You'd be right, but Blizzard's means do not achieve those ends, and that is my point. The economic forces are still in play, and you're a fool if you think farmers won't return to continue claiming their crops. So, what, Blizzard goes through the whole process again (and again and again)? All it's going to do is result in stronger (read: more annoying to other players) farmers.
And, in more direct terms, Blizzard owns the servers, the software and everything in between.
Rookie debate mistake! You pointing out Blizzard's absolute control favors me. Of all the things they could do to fix the system, they picked the least acceptable (i.e., summary execution). And while you can try to "just a game" justify that, that also just means those same people will be back and farming tomorrow with different accounts. It doesn't solve the problem. Blizzard is treating symptoms when they have all the power in the world to create a cure.
And finally, do you actually play WoW? If not, you are, in my humble opinion, not the least bit qualified to comment on what's good for the gameplay experience.
Two problems with that attitude: you're reject what might be an objective viewpoint, and I'm not making a case on gameplay. In fact, everyone seems most upset that I'm point out that your gameplay isn't really changing. No, I don't play WoW. You see that as a liability, but in truth it means I can look at the economic system without getting all emotional over it. From that position, I can easily see that Blizzard is in the wrong, as are all such MMORPGs that try to restrict trade. I'm sorry if your gameplay experience sucks, but it is what it is because of what Blizzard has done.
"some unknown flag at Blizzard?" it's right there in the terms of service that you can't sell in game items for real world money. which part of this are you having trouble grasping?
The part where summary execution is an acceptable practice for a ruling body when a law forbidding free trade is broken.
They violated the ToS, they were kicked. Simple.
So Blizzard claims. It is convenient for you to believe it is true, to believe that killing their accounts is the "best" solution. There is no evidence to back you up, and history has shown that such behavior is actually a negative influence on the population. Nobody has the full story because there was no public investigation, no formal charges, no prosecution, no sentencing. The principles are quite simple, and Blizzard is wrong to act as they have. You are wrong to support them as you have.
The obvious, and best solution to this specific problem is to ban the people who are causing the problem.
Did you stop to think for one second about the principles behind that statement? It's like saying summary execution is the universal solution to all the worlds ills. How many days before we hear about someone who got unfairly axed by Blizzard? Are you eager to have your character deleted by fiat just because it triggered some unknown flag at Blizzard?
Because of the nature of how the gold- sellers work in the game (they sell an item for gold, some Joe User with too much disposable income and not enough time purchases in-game gold with real world money, to buy an item that is being sold by the gold-seller, thereby giving them back their gold, which they resell for real-world money back to the same old Joe User), they over-inflate the economy at an extreme pace, eventually making it so the only way to actually get rare/wanted items is to buy the gold, which just feeds the inflation.
Your story does not support your point. If the game already has the gold and already has the item, the economy is unchanged. That is, what is the difference in game compared to if they just gave the item to Joe User? There is none. Every time this topic comes up, it seems there are always so very many that don't understand that basic point.
So with that in mind, what is the fix? Increase gold drop rates so that people who don't want to buy gold with real money can buy items in an over-inflated economy?
There are any number of things Blizzard could do to balance the game properly. If the root of the problem is gold drops creating wealth out of thin air, then they should stop handing out cash like that. The problem you don't seem to acknowledge is that the economy is already vastly over-inflated because of their non-zero-sum policies.
Who gets hurt by banning the gold sellers?
You do. You don't see it yet, but hopefully you will before I have to start quoting Martin Niemoeller.
Personally, I don't care about them either, but they certainly have every right to play the game, unlike the gold sellers, they deserve consideration in how to try to balance the game, but frankly, maybe the game just isn't for them if they don't want to invest the time in actually playing the stupid thing.
Then, really, you should be in favor of stopping all trade, because money isn't the only reason items change hands. Would you give your friend an item in favor of a stranger? Why should that be allowed? What Blizzard should do is tie every item to the individual that first gets it. Then nobody will be able to play unless they actually play, just like you wanted. Happy, or is summary execution still more your style?
They then charge outrageous prices where your only option to get the cash is to buy it from them.
This is an obvious strawman. There are tons of options for Blizzard to balance the game properly. The one that stifles the farmers in no way prevents the problem (if it can even be seen as a problem) from cropping up again. The economic imbalance that allowed them to exist in the first place remains for anybody to fill.
The end result is that the entire economy will be run by them, IE not free trade.
Nice gloom and doom story, but this will likely never happen. Blizzard prints all the money and can at any time make items in the world appear and disappear. Their shutting down accounts is evidence of their willingness to use (and abuse) their position of power. Nowhere to be seen, though, is a solution that fixes the game and makes farming an unattractive proposition. Again, that's assuming it can be made unattractive in an economic sense.
These aren't real economies. Don't treat them as if they were real economies.
You are very much mistaken. When it come to economies, there is very little line (if any) between "real" and "virtual". All the game represents is another fabricated border with another currency and various import/export imbalances. It is entirely natural and should be expected to see trade happen, and Blizzard is acting like an iron-fisted dictator who purports to know what is best for their people, economics be damned.
Gold farming creates massive inflation which alienates the casual players (and even less casual players who just don't want to pay money for gold) and ultimately results in subscribers cancelling.
Firstly, I don't believe you have the stats to make such a statement. Secondly, so what? You're acting as if massive inflation doesn't happen outside the game. You're acting as if there have never been any devalued currencies in all of history. You're acting as if someone farming a resource in the real world should be allowed to suspend the laws of supply and demand simply because they want to keep asking the same price. No! If there is an unacceptable imbalance in the game, then Blizzard should fix their bloody game!
They are within their rights to try to control the "economy" so as to not lose subscribers and in fact I would estimate that 90% or more (based on my experience in another game) of the players of the game support banning gold sellers.
Then those players are idiots. By that kind of thinking, they demand nothing of value to show for their efforts. Sure, they're playing for entertainment but, like sports stars, that doesn't mean they should want to make it a complete black hole of their time and money. Blizzard naturally likes the idea of all the money flowing in to them, but the players should wise up. It is a real economy, and cutting off trade will eventually stagnate it to the point where the won't just lose subscribers, they'll lose all their subscribers and they won't understand why.
Really? Would anyone from Blizzard care to point to a healthy economy that is fueled by the lack of free trade? It's rather amusing to see how Blizzard's actions mirror the heavy handed use of power by those governments that are globally most despised. It'd be less far less funny if it weren't just a game (but, then, if it's just a game to them why are they being such dicks?).
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore you support my point. QED.
Erm, no. You really need to take (or re-take) a logic course. That your information doesn't support your conclusion in no way means the conclusion it does support is identical. I assure you, we have far from identical opinions.
See my grandparent: "they occupy totally different niches". the iPod is not designed for people who care to much about technology, features or music quality.
Yes, yes; so you say. All I see, though, is an attempt here that reflects precisely the opposite. Why are they trying to go after the features that an iPod boasts if they're not trying to compete in the same markets? If you are right, then it just points to even worse mismanagement in the product marketing and development departments. Forgive me for not giving my money to a company with such a device, or not spending my time adding features to it for the mere chance at a few bucks.
This is were I have a problem with your argument. Yes, maybe Neuros and other `also-rans' as you call them should have offered this feature earlier. But you seem to be moaning that they are now trying to include the feature or "screaming they can't provide what people want" as you call it.
And the problem is . . . ? As the saying goes: too little, too late. Stop copying! Certainly don't form a contest around something you lack that is named after the market leader! If you were serious about the "niche" point, then there are all manner of things they could introduce that their target market wants that isn't done by other players. This contest, though, is just too much of a desperate $1000 "me too" to reasonably stomach.
Interestingly I know an iPod owner who told me he wished he bought a Neuros or another brand I can't remember the name of, because they have the features he really needed (as opposed to the features of the iPod which many consider fads--podcasting probably comes under that for a lot of people).
I'm not sure what your point is. You friend is an ignorant consumer? Nobody in their right mind sees an iPod as a do-it-all device. If he needed recording, or whatever else the iPod isn't doing, he should definitely have bought something else. But, and the market demonstrates this, just because something records sound doesn't make it a particularly good music library player. Same goes for FM, OGG, and any number of other features that manufacturers bullet trying do seem "better" when the buyers mostly sift through it and decide it is simply "different", and unless "different" means "a whole lot better" it means "worse".
By your argument then Linux and Open Office are a total waste as well.
Yeah, pretty much. More importantly, though, neither of those are trying to bait a non-community with cash prizes. Both of those projects are expanded because someone either wants an improvement, or pays for an improvement. Can you name any successful open source effort that dangles a carrot of possible cash in front of it?
The whole idea behind open source is to add features to your hardware. Frankly if I had a Neuro I would be interested in trying to win it.
You support my point. Instead of doing it because you want the feature, you'd be doing it because you want the money. That is totally out of character for the "whole idea behind open source", and additionally misses the mark for the origin of podcasting in the first place. The move by Neuros is a form of astroturfing; there is no real community interest, but Neuros is trying to sell this lottery ticket as an incentive for somebody, anybody to care about their stuff.
Podcasting is not all that hard.
That's what I'd be inclined to believe, too, but here we have Neuros broadcasting that they can't do it, and that it's worth at least a grand to them if someone else could get it done. It's becoming tiresome to have to constantly point out the inconsistency you yourself are mindful enough to mention.
This would make a great project for some high school or college kid.
No, it wouldn't. Most kids are already in the high percentage of iPod users, so they already have podcasting. If they just want the money, there are easier ways to make a grand. Drugs and prostitution come to mind, both of which can be done while listening to music!
What I do not get is the venom and negative attitude. Are you Steve Jobs?
Nope. The reason you don't get the negativity is that you're mired in thinking that this has anything to do with the iPod. Hell, my own iPod (1st Gen with the physical wheel) broke years ago when I tried to use it too much as a HD and it overheated. I haven't bothered to replace it, although I'd probably drop $100 on a shuffle (which would be less likely to overheat) if I saw one in stock anywhere. No, the negativity has to do with the bad business plan that involves baiting developers with prizes instead of actually having a product that encourages community development all on its own. That the iPod is kicking everyone's ass at that is merely incidental to that market. My opinion would be the same for any product in any market that takes the same approach.
So, as I understand it, you are suggesting that the fact that they are using a very efficient and open method to recruit developers for features to add to their free software means they must be desperate and thereby stupid.
Yeah, pretty much.
This is utter nonsense. The same clearly invalid argument could be used against software or computers (or science, technology or any attempt by humanity to do anything) in general: because one uses computers, science, &c as a tool to get things done quickly and efficiently, one must not be able to do things without using them, therefore one is stupid.
Yeah, pretty much. I think you're really reaching with the analogies, though. Try to stay on topic and address the actual actions of Neuros. I'm not exactly sure what they're trying to be, but it is not "efficient", "open", "intelligent", or "the best". If they were any of those, they would already have a product people want more than an iPod instead of desperately holding a contest to find an external talent pool to do their jobs for them.
But, getting back to your analogy for a second: just because you use technology it doesn't make you smarter, quicker, or more efficient. An idiot with a new tool is still an idiot, and Neuros trying to compete with the iPod like this (even reduced to calling it podcasting themselves!) is an idiot move. If it looks like genius to you, well, intelligence is a relative thing . . .
The iPod is a very basic MP3 player--I have a tiny Creative player for about £50 that does more--which is mainly an accesory to iTunes--its USP is its integration with Apple's software. The Neuros is a proffesional player/recorder/encoder/decoder/FM transmitter/receiver/&c which supports loads of encodings, &c and is basically a free-software-based portable computer.
You support my point. All the also-rans are trying to pretend they're superior because they have feature X or price Y. Like them, you neglect to notice that most people aren't interested in those features! They're interested in what the iPod offers, including the sheer simplicity. People also want things like podcasting, and here Neuros is practically screaming they can't provide what people want! It's all rather funny.
Since it looks to me as if the offer the SDK free I do not see the complaint. The podcast software for the Ipod was done for free.
But as the most popular player, people had an iPod already for "podcasting" to be created in the first place. Who has, or even lusts after, a Neuros? It appears to be an also-ran that is going to join all the other also-rans that Apple is laughing at. It's going to take a lot more than a free SDK to interest people.
They are offering a grand for someone to do an open source program for their product. Seems like a nice bit of cash and fame for somebody.
Fame? It'll be, at best, a footnote effort on their web site. How could they possibly put a good spin on it? "Yeah, you know that 'podcasting' thing that was named after the iPod because they started it years ago; well now you can do that with our player, too, because someone outside the company had more time than sense!" As I said, $1000 as "a nice bit of cash" is a drop in the bucket compared to what effort it almost certainly will take, because otherwise, Neuros would have just done it themselves.
Now what you could try to argue is that it's a publicity stunt to get the Neuros name out there. Really, though, what are they publicizing except features their player lacks? And if nobody cares enough to do the job for them, what does that say about their player. There are so many wrong turns this could have that anyone with half a brain is staying far, far away.
So what they are basically doing is offering $1000 to a contract worker to develope their project, but making it out as a competition and the pay is a prize. Genius.
Seems pretty dumb on all sides to me. What it says to me is that Neuros thinks their stuff is so hard to use that they'd give $1000 to someone who could actually pull this off. That also says that $1000 is what it is worth to them; clearly they know it will take even more effort or they would have just developed it in-house. So they're tasking developers far and wide, all who have to shell out for the Neuros in the first place, to do a big project for little money. I'm not sure anyone involved could ever call themselves a "winner" . . .
They have the greatest consumer-level desktop environment in the world, but they're not pushing it at all. It's as if they're relying solely on word-of-mouth advertising.
It actually makes the most sense if you think about it. Desktop computers are complex, even a Mac. There is no way you can say in 30 seconds why to buy one. The iPod is a special-purpose device, so it's a lot easier to get a campaign going for it. Music provides a great "sizzle" for Apple, but a review of their "steak" is best gotten elsewhere.
Oh, I totally agree. But like you said, it'd take a whole lot of compromising to get it to work, and I just don't see that as being feasible.
You know, I would have said the same thing a few years ago about getting all the major record labels lined up for online distribution.
Do you really think a cell phone company is going to give up $3.95 every 90 days in exchange for a sharing agreement with Apple's 10 cents per song?
Maybe not willingly, but there are all kinds of ways they can stick fees to the less intelligent. What about a $4.95/month iTMS access charge? I mean, sure, the phone is Apple's hardware and the user could just use iTunes to transfer all their songs, but we're talking ringtone buyers here. They'd pay it because $5 is nothing to them compared to the ability to grab any song they want on the go. There are all sort of other value-added services that can come with having a well-connected iPhone.
Do you think Jobs would adopt the cellphone carriers' pricing scheme for songs downloaded to the Applephone? Do you think customers would go for that? I sure don't.
That's sheds light on exactly how Apple has to approach it: without bowing to the carriers. Just like they said "$.99 for every song" to the music labels, they make a similarly straightforward proposal to the cell companies. If they had a good enough phone to back it up, the users would clamor for the providers smart enough to get onboard. Apple is still the underdog in the driver's seat.
What does the term "the fairer sex" mean anyways? Are males unfairer? I dun get it.
Oh, man, when someone with the alias "British" posts something like that, there are just way too many jokes to be made.
I don't know about the USA, but in England it has long been held that a manufacturer of a kitchen knife cannot be held responsible for a murder carried out using the knife.
In the USA, we use guns to irresponsibly kill each other. Only in rural and/or southern regions does the concept of a special "kitchen gun" make sense. Now you know!
Computers should be a tool to help people, not require them to learn a new language just to communicate with them.
But you're wrong, and that's precisely why people are crapping on the idea. You do have to learn a new language, and it is just different enough from English to piss you off. A bug in a formal programming language makes sense to the programmer because we can internalize the syntax and semantics of it, but we already have internalized the broader semantics of English such that the accepted syntactic subset will likely be interpreted different than is expected. It's the development equivalent of the uncanny valley. It seems like a good idea, but it's only going to make things worse before it makes things better.
No, I said the economy in which they live. In other words, the economy in which we live. Nothing to do with the actual game.
Then I've lost your point. There is nothing that distinguishes "their" economy from "our" economy. The issue at hand is foreign economies like WoW presents. Perhaps a better parallel is how much less I care about cricket or rugby players. Not only does their play not interest me, their contributions to my economy is limited by an independent exchange rate. Same holds true for the value of play in the WoW economy.
Huh? Weren't you trying to make a point about "the love of the game?"
Yes; your point seems lost again. What does Bonds' love of the game have to do with your mage?
Because what they're doing is disruptive to other players. It's a matter of consideration.
Rubbish. It's simple competition for available resources. Am I being inconsiderate if I get a job we both apply for? Oh no, I've been "disruptive" of your ability to contribute to the "real" economy! Please . . .
OK, wait a second. You're trying to tell me that you think an account suspension in a game is more damaging than the murder of a loved one because the loved one's possessions are redistributed afterwards?
Yes, in the bloody game. Why you're not getting the distinction is beyond me. You're treating the virtual border between your country and WoW as though it is abstractly different than the border between your country and any other foreign country. From the perspective of economic trade, it is not.
I don't take a character's perspective because I am not a level 52 mage. That's a fictional character in a game that I play for fun, and to say that the in-game world of WoW and real life are anything similar to each other is, in my humble opinion, rather delusional.
Empathy is delusional? Again, it's all about the principles. The game is virtual in the same way you will never meet virtually 99.99% of the world's population. Which would matter more to you, the loss of your own mage or the death of thousands (e.g. the tsunami disaster) you will never know? Odds are your knee-jerk reaction is to say the "real" disaster victims, but the reality is that your game play affects you more than many aspects of the real world, including distant disasters. So, yeah, it may sound a bit delusional to care about abuse of power in a virtual world, but I do because my principle is to care about abuse in any world.
You seem to think that whatever is physically possible is acceptable behavior, whereas I feel that people have a responsibility to behave in a civilized manner, regardless of whether their environment is conducive to bad behavior.
More correctly, I think that whatever is physically possible is eventual behavior. Whether or not I find it acceptable doesn't matter; it will happen and I'd be a fool not to properly plan for it to happen. Only Blizzard has the power to keep it from happening, done by changing the game, yet their approach is to act after the fact in a harsh and apparently irreversible way. That is inexcusable.
I reiterate that this is a game, and not an economic or ecological sandbox.
That you draw a distinction is where you go wrong. Consider that all the complaints here are precisely issues of economy and ecology that you claim the game is nothing about. They may not be worded exactly as such, and you may actively refuse to acknowledge such elements in a game, but the competition for limited resources is there and can be dealt with using the same abstractions.
You say Blizzard has established an exchange rate; I say that it was established by those trying to trade virtual gold for US dollars, a practice that the game's creators have prohibited.
You are wrong. The obvious measure is simple: can you play the game for free? Blizzard's fees establish a connecti
Ha ha ha! Good one! You, who've been going on and on about the virtues of the free market, now say that Blizzard, a public company funded by voluntary subscription payments from customers, is somehow "without accountability".
You are confusing two issues. Corporate accountability is about actions in this economy; that they have. Character accountability is about actions in their game; that they don't have. What accountability do they have if they axed an account that wasn't a gold farmer? There is no court to appeal to. Hell, there may even be no record that the character ever existed. They control everything in game. They can make you vanish and not answer to anyone. Understand?
The fact is that gold-farmers make the game less fun for most players.
The fact is that gold farming is deemed acceptable by Blizzard. What is not deemed acceptable is selling farmed goods at market, an action that occurs entirely outside the game.
Their very presence disrupts gameplay for the customers who pay the bills to keep the servers humming.
Are the farmers not paying their bills? If not, then that is the reason to cut them off. If they're simply playing Blizzard's game as Blizzard wants (hint: they are!), then they are not influencing the gameplay at all. Blizzard can fix the gameplay if they wanted to; booting certain farmers doesn't accomplish that.
If Blizzard either ignores/condones gold-farmers, or undercuts their business by selling gold themselves, they will be cutting their own throat.
Not at all true. First, again, they already condone gold farming. Hell, most gameplay probably rests firmly on the grounds of the farming economy created by Blizzard, it's just that most people move on to other parts of the game while the farmers are content to work the same piece of land. So the issue is selling gold. The fact is, Blizzard already establishes an exchange rate because they charge to play the game. So gold prices reflect the cost to buy into the game and the cost to pay someone to play the game and farm the gold. Could I hire someone to play my own account for me to gather that gold? That certainly seems OK according to the TOS. So why should it be wrong to pay for gold similarly gathered with another valid account? The only issue, then, with Blizzard selling gold themselves is where that gold comes from, because if they'd just dump money into the game then, yes, their actions devalue the currency.
And WoW is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. Many things are. Running a democracy takes a significant expenditure of effort on the part of everyone involved. It makes sense when it comes to protecting inalienable human rights, but I don't have that kind of time to keep tabs on what Blizzard is doing.
The funny thing is, your position is probably the most agreeable opposition I've seen. Everyone else is trying to defend Blizzard as being right, but you nail it by saying they don't have have to be fair and they don't have to care if I think they're behaving badly. That would be a chilling admission for most playing the game (which seems to be where all the defenders are coming from), but I've got no investment in Blizzard doing bad things with WoW. If the players want to cheer them on, so be it.
The economy in which sports stars (and we) live is vitally important to our everyday life.
Are you fucking kidding me!? What does it matter if the Bulls beat the Nicks (or whatever)? Just because they broadcast that shit on the news doesn't make it matter. Same can be said about the comings and going of movie stars. None of that is vitally important. There are huge economies surrounding it, but everyday life would get on just fine if those people weren't taking in huge money to entertain.
I value my level 52 mage, but not as much as I'm sure Barry Bonds values his paycheck.
Wrong analogy. The question is whether you value your mage more than you value Bonds. Hell, I value a disposable life in UT2004 more than I value the contributions of anyone playing in a spectator sport for boatloads of cash.
Now that's just silly. I don't sell gold, either.
Uh, but you do charge others for the time and effort you expend to accomplish some task, right? How again does that differ from these people charging others for the time and effort they expend to accomplish some task?
Comparing account suspension to summary execution is somewhat disingenuous, considering that the losses suffered in summary execution are orders of magnitude higher.
Exactly wrong. Someone gets killed in real life and they still have property or other valuables that can be used by friends and family. By all reports, Blizzard's actions froze everything about the accounts in question. I think what you were trying to say is that a killing in WoW is not a "real" killing, but that misses the point that it is a real killing from the character's perspective. You're not adopting a proper "in game" mentality to rationally discuss the ethical backdrop of their actions. You dehumanize everyone when you suggest that actions of foreign leaders can be brutal and unaccountable. You can try to handwave it all away with "it's just a game", but the principles remain the same.
History has shown time and again that when a situation allows one to gain at the expense of others, there are always people willing to do it.
I want you to reread your own words over and over until you realize why Blizzard's actions solve nothing.
As for examples, look at how workers were treated in the late 19th century under industry moguls such as Carnegie. Hell, look at the rampant present corruption in the current Bush administration.
Are you attempting to claim that either is a purely free market? Hell, you even make my point by flat out stating there's corruption.
How? Do you have any suggestions? I don't think that you could do much of anything that would have a profound effect without drastically altering the game.
I've already given suggestion (maybe not directly to you, but elsewhere), as have many other who have posted with this article. They need to create a real ecology and stop having things just spawn with gold all ripe for farming. You know what I'd like to see: extinctions. You fucking over feed on a species, and you're both in trouble. Yes, that drastically alters the game, but I think it alters it for the better. No more of things popping up out of thin air. Boy meets girl and, if you're part of that world (I mean really part of the game and not just mindless level grinding), then killing them means no spawn, and killing all the spawns eventually means the same thing.
In any case, it's a start, and I'd rather they do this in the interim than wait six months while they sit on their hands and develop a better solution.
It's not a start, it's a terrible misstep that they might not be able to fix. Do you have any reason to believe they are working on a better solution? And not even drastic change like I'd want, but simple things like adding a "reaper" to the game that hunts the hunters. I'm not going to pat them on the back unless t
The resources inside the game are NOT limited. Blizzard, with the push of a button, could multiply everyone's gold by 100 or 10000 percent- and avoid inflation by multiplying all the available buyable goods, too.
That does not support your point. By changing the granularity (whatever the order of magnitude) you do not change the economy. If they maintain a balance, where does your purported "NOT limited" come into play? Shall I take a guess at what your Econ101 grade was?
The game's "economy" is necessarily fake, because games are supposed to be fun, and navigating a real economy is not fun: it's work.
You're wrong. That you find it work says more about you than it does about economies. The reality is that their "fake" economy is making the game less fun because people are exploiting the system. That's what this whole bloody article is about!
The only reason there was any resource limitation in the WOW economy at all was at Blizzard's whim- the game designer thought players would have more fun if advancement was limited.
Wrong again. Resource limitations (and the way said resources are attained) make the game. Because they have chosen to badly implement that economy it makes the game less fun. You limit advancement because it's boring as hell to level up by doing nothing more than clicking an up arrow. But if these farmers can succeed in the game, then clearly there is much work that needs to be done by Blizzard in the "fun" department.
So don't act like Blizzard is a tyrant coming in and trying to push around the free market- because he created and sustained that market from the start.
What the hell are you talking about? The is no free market in WoW because the TOS prohibits it. All there is is a way for money to flow into the game via Blizzard. They selfishly thinks that's a good idea, but in reality it's isolationism and creates a less interesting world.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that the customer and Blizzard have some sort of egalitarian social contract.
Nope.
There is a TOS and banning accounts in violation of said TOS is standard operating procedure.
Yep.
So it's not as if Blizzard has done anything, but reinforce the fact that MMORPG's are not a productive use of Joe User's time by banning Joe User, and rendering his in game efforts to nothingness.
And there's the rub. By acting without accountability, they hold the threat that they'll kill any account and claim it was a TOS violation. In doing so, they make all accounts worthless and give players little reason to stick with WoW once the next hot game comes along or, hell, little reason for anyone to play the game in the first place. I'm certainly not going to constantly sink time and money into playing when they can just vanish me tomorrow. I'll stick with UT2004, where I'm assured of frequent death and spawn camping without all the needless gnashing of teeth about it.
On a tiny, relatively low resolution display. No thanks.
What about tiny with no display? That is, podcasting (or whatever the hell you want to call it) news the same way you might use an audiobook. I suppose you could use a player with a display to make things easier, but bare bones like an iPod shuffle should work just as well. Start playing a story and skip on to the next one if something doesn't interest you. Papers would have to more directly compete with the likes of radio in doing so, but text-to-speech and user-directed search of content sure opens up some really interesting possibilities.
I refer you to an excerpt from one of your previous posts on the subject:
The key phrase you should have absorbed is "they won't understand why". Your doom mistakenly suggests it's at the hands of farmers, when in reality it is at the hands of Blizzard, who are unknowingly cutting their own throats. It doesn't seem like anyone is getting that, and I'm getting tired of repeating it.
But in the meantime, I'd love to see some heads roll. These people deserve it.
How would you know? I don't think Blizzard has release any details on their action. You have absolutely no idea everyone whose account was cancelled actually deserved it. Again, the solution should be to balance the economy properly, and not simply kill off people who thrive in the situation that Blizzard has created. We all offhandedly say we'd like to see heads roll from time to time, but that doesn't mean we fire off 1000 shots, or expect anyone else to do it without due process, either. That is exactly the objectionable action that Blizzard has taken, and people need to stop defending them.
The problem with arguments like yours is that WoW is a game. It's supposed to be fun. I don't frankly give a rat's ass whether someone can profit enormously from it. If that's what you're looking to do, you're playing the wrong game.
Nice rhetoric, but entirely disingenuous. Everyone spouting "just a game" needs to immediately go in and wipe out all their characters. If you are unwilling to do that, if you value what you've created, I don't even want to hear that we should be treating it differently. It like the old argument that sports stars should be in it for the love of the game and not the dough; say it all you like, but economic forces dictate that they can draw millions for game play. Is it really so wrong to point out similar forces in a MMORPG?
The issue is that when the stakes get high enough (in any economy), people turn into unethical assholes.
Maybe, but I don't see you running around shooting people dead. I mostly don't even see government agents acting with such disregard. Yet that is exactly how Blizzard is behaving, and far too many are giving them a pat on the back for it. It's kind of funny that nobody has at least tried to argue that Blizzard's dictatorship is benevolent. You all seem to be attacking on economic grounds, which is just about the weakest position to take on this.
The problem with purely free markets is that a large percentage of people tend to end up getting treated like shit. Which sucks in real life, but that's an entirely separate issue.
Totally untrue. What you're probably alluding to is more corruption and not purely free markets like you claim. If you can't give an example, I must assume you're just making stuff up here. You shouldn't do that, because it weakens your argument as a whole.
Do you want to have to work around Chinese sweatshop grunts perpetually camping the enemy that you have to kill for a quest?
You're missing the big picture. Blizzard is quite able to fix their bloody game so that camping is not economically advantageous. Instead, they are arbitrarily killing accounts. If you're not comfortable with any other governing body doing that kind of thing, you should not be comfortable with Blizzard doing it.
Is your right to make money in the virtual world of Azeroth more important than the desire of a vast majority of their subscribers to just have a fun, balanced game to play? I don't think it is.
You'd be right, but Blizzard's means do not achieve those ends, and that is my point. The economic forces are still in play, and you're a fool if you think farmers won't return to continue claiming their crops. So, what, Blizzard goes through the whole process again (and again and again)? All it's going to do is result in stronger (read: more annoying to other players) farmers.
And, in more direct terms, Blizzard owns the servers, the software and everything in between.
Rookie debate mistake! You pointing out Blizzard's absolute control favors me. Of all the things they could do to fix the system, they picked the least acceptable (i.e., summary execution). And while you can try to "just a game" justify that, that also just means those same people will be back and farming tomorrow with different accounts. It doesn't solve the problem. Blizzard is treating symptoms when they have all the power in the world to create a cure.
And finally, do you actually play WoW? If not, you are, in my humble opinion, not the least bit qualified to comment on what's good for the gameplay experience.
Two problems with that attitude: you're reject what might be an objective viewpoint, and I'm not making a case on gameplay. In fact, everyone seems most upset that I'm point out that your gameplay isn't really changing. No, I don't play WoW. You see that as a liability, but in truth it means I can look at the economic system without getting all emotional over it. From that position, I can easily see that Blizzard is in the wrong, as are all such MMORPGs that try to restrict trade. I'm sorry if your gameplay experience sucks, but it is what it is because of what Blizzard has done.
"some unknown flag at Blizzard?" it's right there in the terms of service that you can't sell in game items for real world money. which part of this are you having trouble grasping?
The part where summary execution is an acceptable practice for a ruling body when a law forbidding free trade is broken.
They violated the ToS, they were kicked. Simple.
So Blizzard claims. It is convenient for you to believe it is true, to believe that killing their accounts is the "best" solution. There is no evidence to back you up, and history has shown that such behavior is actually a negative influence on the population. Nobody has the full story because there was no public investigation, no formal charges, no prosecution, no sentencing. The principles are quite simple, and Blizzard is wrong to act as they have. You are wrong to support them as you have.
The obvious, and best solution to this specific problem is to ban the people who are causing the problem.
Did you stop to think for one second about the principles behind that statement? It's like saying summary execution is the universal solution to all the worlds ills. How many days before we hear about someone who got unfairly axed by Blizzard? Are you eager to have your character deleted by fiat just because it triggered some unknown flag at Blizzard?
Because of the nature of how the gold- sellers work in the game (they sell an item for gold, some Joe User with too much disposable income and not enough time purchases in-game gold with real world money, to buy an item that is being sold by the gold-seller, thereby giving them back their gold, which they resell for real-world money back to the same old Joe User), they over-inflate the economy at an extreme pace, eventually making it so the only way to actually get rare/wanted items is to buy the gold, which just feeds the inflation.
Your story does not support your point. If the game already has the gold and already has the item, the economy is unchanged. That is, what is the difference in game compared to if they just gave the item to Joe User? There is none. Every time this topic comes up, it seems there are always so very many that don't understand that basic point.
So with that in mind, what is the fix? Increase gold drop rates so that people who don't want to buy gold with real money can buy items in an over-inflated economy?
There are any number of things Blizzard could do to balance the game properly. If the root of the problem is gold drops creating wealth out of thin air, then they should stop handing out cash like that. The problem you don't seem to acknowledge is that the economy is already vastly over-inflated because of their non-zero-sum policies.
Who gets hurt by banning the gold sellers?
You do. You don't see it yet, but hopefully you will before I have to start quoting Martin Niemoeller.
Personally, I don't care about them either, but they certainly have every right to play the game, unlike the gold sellers, they deserve consideration in how to try to balance the game, but frankly, maybe the game just isn't for them if they don't want to invest the time in actually playing the stupid thing.
Then, really, you should be in favor of stopping all trade, because money isn't the only reason items change hands. Would you give your friend an item in favor of a stranger? Why should that be allowed? What Blizzard should do is tie every item to the individual that first gets it. Then nobody will be able to play unless they actually play, just like you wanted. Happy, or is summary execution still more your style?
They then charge outrageous prices where your only option to get the cash is to buy it from them.
This is an obvious strawman. There are tons of options for Blizzard to balance the game properly. The one that stifles the farmers in no way prevents the problem (if it can even be seen as a problem) from cropping up again. The economic imbalance that allowed them to exist in the first place remains for anybody to fill.
The end result is that the entire economy will be run by them, IE not free trade.
Nice gloom and doom story, but this will likely never happen. Blizzard prints all the money and can at any time make items in the world appear and disappear. Their shutting down accounts is evidence of their willingness to use (and abuse) their position of power. Nowhere to be seen, though, is a solution that fixes the game and makes farming an unattractive proposition. Again, that's assuming it can be made unattractive in an economic sense.
These aren't real economies. Don't treat them as if they were real economies.
You are very much mistaken. When it come to economies, there is very little line (if any) between "real" and "virtual". All the game represents is another fabricated border with another currency and various import/export imbalances. It is entirely natural and should be expected to see trade happen, and Blizzard is acting like an iron-fisted dictator who purports to know what is best for their people, economics be damned.
Gold farming creates massive inflation which alienates the casual players (and even less casual players who just don't want to pay money for gold) and ultimately results in subscribers cancelling.
Firstly, I don't believe you have the stats to make such a statement. Secondly, so what? You're acting as if massive inflation doesn't happen outside the game. You're acting as if there have never been any devalued currencies in all of history. You're acting as if someone farming a resource in the real world should be allowed to suspend the laws of supply and demand simply because they want to keep asking the same price. No! If there is an unacceptable imbalance in the game, then Blizzard should fix their bloody game!
They are within their rights to try to control the "economy" so as to not lose subscribers and in fact I would estimate that 90% or more (based on my experience in another game) of the players of the game support banning gold sellers.
Then those players are idiots. By that kind of thinking, they demand nothing of value to show for their efforts. Sure, they're playing for entertainment but, like sports stars, that doesn't mean they should want to make it a complete black hole of their time and money. Blizzard naturally likes the idea of all the money flowing in to them, but the players should wise up. It is a real economy, and cutting off trade will eventually stagnate it to the point where the won't just lose subscribers, they'll lose all their subscribers and they won't understand why.
and damage the game economy as a whole
Really? Would anyone from Blizzard care to point to a healthy economy that is fueled by the lack of free trade? It's rather amusing to see how Blizzard's actions mirror the heavy handed use of power by those governments that are globally most despised. It'd be less far less funny if it weren't just a game (but, then, if it's just a game to them why are they being such dicks?).