This is the clearest-headed comment I've read today.
If online games do not wish to eventually regulated as if they were a form of gambling they will have to take the initiative and come up with policies that protect themselves and players from being held financially responsible for losses of virtual goods.
Ultimately they are the 'owner' of all the objects in the game including the players' characters. They should aggressively refute the idea that any of their players have the right to buy or sell anything outside of the game world. All the games I know of already state this but they don't appear to take any steps to back this up.
If game companies are lax in this regard they may soon see themselves restricted in ways which I fear will drastically reduce their 'fun' value.
>Come on, people! The state should never be involved in this sort of thing.
I think the game companies should make a better effort to crack down on this sort of thing to avoid the state eventually being obliged to step in.
I would very much like to see game companies take a stronger stance opposing real-life trading of their virtual gold/properties. Some free games that I play in have a strict rule prohibitting the sale of goods or game accounts in real life.
The reason I support this is that the more value these things are allowed to have in 'real' economies the less freedom we'll have in the game. Many fun games allow players to kill, loot and steal from eachother. Other games offer opportunities for fraud and deception - all part of the game. However if a governemtn were to in any way acknowledge the value of fantasy currency then the victim of a fantasy crime might have grounds for legal action in the real-world courts. This would be lethal to one of the most precious aspects gaming - the escapism from real-life consequences.
Imagine what would happen to Nightfreeze in a world like that?
Slashdot Mirror
This is the clearest-headed comment I've read today. If online games do not wish to eventually regulated as if they were a form of gambling they will have to take the initiative and come up with policies that protect themselves and players from being held financially responsible for losses of virtual goods. Ultimately they are the 'owner' of all the objects in the game including the players' characters. They should aggressively refute the idea that any of their players have the right to buy or sell anything outside of the game world. All the games I know of already state this but they don't appear to take any steps to back this up. If game companies are lax in this regard they may soon see themselves restricted in ways which I fear will drastically reduce their 'fun' value.
>Come on, people! The state should never be involved in this sort of thing. I think the game companies should make a better effort to crack down on this sort of thing to avoid the state eventually being obliged to step in.
The reason I support this is that the more value these things are allowed to have in 'real' economies the less freedom we'll have in the game. Many fun games allow players to kill, loot and steal from eachother. Other games offer opportunities for fraud and deception - all part of the game. However if a governemtn were to in any way acknowledge the value of fantasy currency then the victim of a fantasy crime might have grounds for legal action in the real-world courts. This would be lethal to one of the most precious aspects gaming - the escapism from real-life consequences.
Imagine what would happen to Nightfreeze in a world like that?