I find it baffling how anyone can consider Lamo's non-malicious acts of security audits grounds for incarceration. If I were responsible for the New York Times data network during Lamo's breach, in addition to being embarrassed, I most likely would have written him a check and engaged with him to tighten up the security holes (Obviously including the necessary agreements required to protect against the sale or use of the data he had access to).
Had Lamo intended to act maliciously or engage without notice, he could have. So, the New York Times should be thankful that it was Lamo, walk-off the embarrassment, and throw this frivolous suit in the garbage can. The dollars allocated to the damage as a result of Lamo's activities are most likely "soft" costs. Specifically, the 300k associated to the LexisNexis activity, which is, most likely, an overvalued retail transaction price related to database queries, which fundamentally costs nothing. And, the 25k associated to the investigation efforts of the New York Times networking personnel, was really just a bad business decision. They could have just asked Lamo once he disclosed that he breached the network. I'm sure he would have provided the details. Additionally, those are, most likely, soft costs, as those resources used to perform the investigation were, most likely, New York Times network administration personnel doing what they do every day, well aside from reading Slashdot, and handling ID-10-T user errors.
The "real" cash that was wasted on all the blood-sucking lawyers to file suit against Lamo, should have been used to tighten up the security on that New York Times network. But, maybe it's not too late. Maybe, the charges can be dropped, prior to sentencing, and Lamo is good-natured enough to still help the New York Times out. Because the possibility of being on the receiving end of hacker community retaliation is certainly not a place I would ever want to be!
Guys, this is economics 101. The game is a market. It has supply and demand. It just makes sense. If you don't see how this works, I suggest you make a trip to your local book store and pick up a book that describes basic economics.
And, for those of you who think that "time" is the great equalizer. Think again! Last time I checked, many people value time and money equally. To break it down simply, there are really four segments of the time/money equation. Below are each of those segments, with a description of how MMOG business models "should" value them;
1. Those with More Time Than Money Clearly this is how the majority of MMOG's are designed, with the exception of Project Entropia, which did a very poor job bringing the concept of the Time/Money equation to market, and is a crappy game to boot. This segment is most likely the largest segment, so not such a bad idea to focus on this segment. Although, it's still just a piece of the a much larger market.
2. Those with More Money Than Time I believe there are many more folks in this segment than most game developers want to accept. According to the "Take-Two" (that's a public game publisher) proxy statement, the average gammer age is 28, which includes the casual and hardcore gamers. It's safe to assume that the average gammer age for MMOG's is a few years more, as these games are played by the more sophisticated and non-casual gammer. These are the people who grew up in the Atari/Commodore personal computer era, and are considered to be a more sophisticated gammer. Additional, people in their late 20's early 30's are more likely to have a job, and more likely to have more disposable income. But, most of them are struggling with time. The folks earning more money, obviously work for it, and work takes time. And generally, the more time you spend working, the more money you make. Hence the logic for why they value time the same as money. And ultimately, these people are willing to part with money to keep up with those gamers defined in segment 1 above. (Marvin, your conjecture of the gammer with money not understanding how to use items that they purchase, is not even remotely accurate. Remember, these people value time the same as money, so they won't frivolously make purchases, just like someone with time won't frivolously spend time.)
3. Those with Time & Money Couldn't we all be this lucky! There are very few people in this segment. And for some reason, every time this subject is discussed, time advocates lump everyone with disposable income in this category. Since this is small group, we don't have to concern ourselves too much about this segment. It's safe to assume that they will be right along side those who play the games 24/7 (God bless them). So, there will be a nice balance between the very wealthy, and the very addicted.
4. Those without Time or Money These folks can't pay subscription fees. So, unfortunately there isn't much we can do about them.
In conclusion, it is pretty clear that the merger of a virtual and real-world economies will increase the MMOG gaming population by creating a much more level playing field for all those interested. This will result in greater player competition (which I see as very positive), and more real-world revenue that will benefit the MMOG developers/publishers and possibly even the player. There is much more to be said about player income, but it's rather complicated, and I am running out of time. =) And just to make sure I have the arguments covered here, just because it makes sense that MMOG's incorporate real-world economics, doesn't mean the game will not be fun to play. While game design and playability may relate slightly, it is mostly an autonomous concept. So, lets try hard not to be confused by this.
Guys, this is economics 101. The game is a market. It has supply and demand. It just makes sense. If you don't see how this works, I suggest you make a trip to your local book store and pick up a book that describes basic economics.
And, for those of you who think that "time" is the great equalizer. Think again! Last time I checked, many people value time and money equally. To break it down simply, there are really four segments of the time/money equation. Below are each of those segments, with a description of how MMOG business models "should" value them;
1. Those with More Time Than Money
Clearly this is how the majority of MMOG's are designed, with the exception of Project Entropia, which did a very poor job bringing the concept of the Time/Money equation to market, and is a crappy game to boot. This segment is most likely the largest segment, so not such a bad idea to focus on this segment. Although, it's still just a piece of the a much larger market.
2. Those with More Money Than Time
I believe there are many more folks in this segment than most game developers want to accept. According to the "Take-Two" (that's a public game publisher) proxy statement, the average gammer age is 28, which includes the casual and hardcore gamers. It's safe to assume that the average gammer age for MMOG's is a few years more, as these games are played by the more sophisticated and non-casual gammer. These are the people who grew up in the Atari/Commodore personal computer era, and are considered to be a more sophisticated gammer. Additional, people in their late 20's early 30's are more likely to have a job, and more likely to have more disposable income. But, most of them are struggling with time. The folks earning more money, obviously work for it, and work takes time. And generally, the more time you spend working, the more money you make. Hence the logic for why they value time the same as money. And ultimately, these people are willing to part with money to keep up with those gamers defined in segment 1 above. (Marvin, your conjecture of the gammer with money not understanding how to use items that they purchase, is not even remotely accurate. Remember, these people value time the same as money, so they won't frivolously make purchases, just like someone with time won't frivolously spend time.)
3. Those with Time & Money
Couldn't we all be this lucky! There are very few people in this segment. And for some reason, every time this subject is discussed, time advocates lump everyone with disposable income in this category. Since this is small group, we don't have to concern ourselves too much about this segment. It's safe to assume that they will be right along side those who play the games 24/7 (God bless them). So, there will be a nice balance between the very wealthy, and the very addicted.
4. Those without Time or Money
These folks can't pay subscription fees. So, unfortunately there isn't much we can do about them.
In conclusion, it is pretty clear that the merger of a virtual and real-world economies will increase the MMOG gaming population by creating a much more level playing field for all those interested. This will result in greater player competition (which I see as very positive), and more real-world revenue that will benefit the MMOG developers/publishers and possibly even the player. There is much more to be said about player income, but it's rather complicated, and I am running out of time. =) And just to make sure I have the arguments covered here, just because it makes sense that MMOG's incorporate real-world economics, doesn't mean the game will not be fun to play. While game design and playability may relate slightly, it is mostly an autonomous concept. So, lets try hard not to be confused by this.
-Drew
Slashdot Mirror
#include <iostream>
#define SUCCESS 0
#define FATAL_ERROR -1
using namespace std;
enum
{
Google = 1,
Yahoo,
SomethingWorseThanYahooIfPossible
};
int main (void)
{
int EmailService;
cout << "Select your preferred email service provider. (1 = Google, 2 = Yahoo, 3 = SomethingElse) >";
cin >> EmailService;
if (EmailService == Google)
{
cout << "You enjoy clean interfaces, non-evil marketing functionality, and lot's of storage space!" << endl;
return (SUCCESS);
}
else if ((EmailService == Yahoo) || (EmailService == SomethingWorseThanYahooIfPossible))
{
cout << "You enjoy cluttered interfaces, evil marketing functionality, and very little storage space!" << endl;
cout << "You're a moron!" << endl;
return (FATAL_ERROR);
}
else
{
cout << "Wow, you can't even follow simple instructions. You aren't worthy of the Gmail product." << endl;
cout << "Go away!" << endl;
return (FATAL_ERROR);
}
}
I find it baffling how anyone can consider Lamo's non-malicious acts of security audits grounds for incarceration. If I were responsible for the New York Times data network during Lamo's breach, in addition to being embarrassed, I most likely would have written him a check and engaged with him to tighten up the security holes (Obviously including the necessary agreements required to protect against the sale or use of the data he had access to).
Had Lamo intended to act maliciously or engage without notice, he could have. So, the New York Times should be thankful that it was Lamo, walk-off the embarrassment, and throw this frivolous suit in the garbage can. The dollars allocated to the damage as a result of Lamo's activities are most likely "soft" costs. Specifically, the 300k associated to the LexisNexis activity, which is, most likely, an overvalued retail transaction price related to database queries, which fundamentally costs nothing. And, the 25k associated to the investigation efforts of the New York Times networking personnel, was really just a bad business decision. They could have just asked Lamo once he disclosed that he breached the network. I'm sure he would have provided the details. Additionally, those are, most likely, soft costs, as those resources used to perform the investigation were, most likely, New York Times network administration personnel doing what they do every day, well aside from reading Slashdot, and handling ID-10-T user errors.
The "real" cash that was wasted on all the blood-sucking lawyers to file suit against Lamo, should have been used to tighten up the security on that New York Times network. But, maybe it's not too late. Maybe, the charges can be dropped, prior to sentencing, and Lamo is good-natured enough to still help the New York Times out. Because the possibility of being on the receiving end of hacker community retaliation is certainly not a place I would ever want to be!
ER
Guys, this is economics 101. The game is a market. It has supply and demand. It just makes sense. If you don't see how this works, I suggest you make a trip to your local book store and pick up a book that describes basic economics.
And, for those of you who think that "time" is the great equalizer. Think again! Last time I checked, many people value time and money equally. To break it down simply, there are really four segments of the time/money equation. Below are each of those segments, with a description of how MMOG business models "should" value them;
1. Those with More Time Than Money
Clearly this is how the majority of MMOG's are designed, with the exception of Project Entropia, which did a very poor job bringing the concept of the Time/Money equation to market, and is a crappy game to boot. This segment is most likely the largest segment, so not such a bad idea to focus on this segment. Although, it's still just a piece of the a much larger market.
2. Those with More Money Than Time
I believe there are many more folks in this segment than most game developers want to accept. According to the "Take-Two" (that's a public game publisher) proxy statement, the average gammer age is 28, which includes the casual and hardcore gamers. It's safe to assume that the average gammer age for MMOG's is a few years more, as these games are played by the more sophisticated and non-casual gammer. These are the people who grew up in the Atari/Commodore personal computer era, and are considered to be a more sophisticated gammer. Additional, people in their late 20's early 30's are more likely to have a job, and more likely to have more disposable income. But, most of them are struggling with time. The folks earning more money, obviously work for it, and work takes time. And generally, the more time you spend working, the more money you make. Hence the logic for why they value time the same as money. And ultimately, these people are willing to part with money to keep up with those gamers defined in segment 1 above. (Marvin, your conjecture of the gammer with money not understanding how to use items that they purchase, is not even remotely accurate. Remember, these people value time the same as money, so they won't frivolously make purchases, just like someone with time won't frivolously spend time.)
3. Those with Time & Money
Couldn't we all be this lucky! There are very few people in this segment. And for some reason, every time this subject is discussed, time advocates lump everyone with disposable income in this category. Since this is small group, we don't have to concern ourselves too much about this segment. It's safe to assume that they will be right along side those who play the games 24/7 (God bless them). So, there will be a nice balance between the very wealthy, and the very addicted.
4. Those without Time or Money
These folks can't pay subscription fees. So, unfortunately there isn't much we can do about them.
In conclusion, it is pretty clear that the merger of a virtual and real-world economies will increase the MMOG gaming population by creating a much more level playing field for all those interested. This will result in greater player competition (which I see as very positive), and more real-world revenue that will benefit the MMOG developers/publishers and possibly even the player. There is much more to be said about player income, but it's rather complicated, and I am running out of time. =) And just to make sure I have the arguments covered here, just because it makes sense that MMOG's incorporate real-world economics, doesn't mean the game will not be fun to play. While game design and playability may relate slightly, it is mostly an autonomous concept. So, lets try hard not to be confused by this.
-Drew
Guys, this is economics 101. The game is a market. It has supply and demand. It just makes sense. If you don't see how this works, I suggest you make a trip to your local book store and pick up a book that describes basic economics. And, for those of you who think that "time" is the great equalizer. Think again! Last time I checked, many people value time and money equally. To break it down simply, there are really four segments of the time/money equation. Below are each of those segments, with a description of how MMOG business models "should" value them; 1. Those with More Time Than Money Clearly this is how the majority of MMOG's are designed, with the exception of Project Entropia, which did a very poor job bringing the concept of the Time/Money equation to market, and is a crappy game to boot. This segment is most likely the largest segment, so not such a bad idea to focus on this segment. Although, it's still just a piece of the a much larger market. 2. Those with More Money Than Time I believe there are many more folks in this segment than most game developers want to accept. According to the "Take-Two" (that's a public game publisher) proxy statement, the average gammer age is 28, which includes the casual and hardcore gamers. It's safe to assume that the average gammer age for MMOG's is a few years more, as these games are played by the more sophisticated and non-casual gammer. These are the people who grew up in the Atari/Commodore personal computer era, and are considered to be a more sophisticated gammer. Additional, people in their late 20's early 30's are more likely to have a job, and more likely to have more disposable income. But, most of them are struggling with time. The folks earning more money, obviously work for it, and work takes time. And generally, the more time you spend working, the more money you make. Hence the logic for why they value time the same as money. And ultimately, these people are willing to part with money to keep up with those gamers defined in segment 1 above. (Marvin, your conjecture of the gammer with money not understanding how to use items that they purchase, is not even remotely accurate. Remember, these people value time the same as money, so they won't frivolously make purchases, just like someone with time won't frivolously spend time.) 3. Those with Time & Money Couldn't we all be this lucky! There are very few people in this segment. And for some reason, every time this subject is discussed, time advocates lump everyone with disposable income in this category. Since this is small group, we don't have to concern ourselves too much about this segment. It's safe to assume that they will be right along side those who play the games 24/7 (God bless them). So, there will be a nice balance between the very wealthy, and the very addicted. 4. Those without Time or Money These folks can't pay subscription fees. So, unfortunately there isn't much we can do about them. In conclusion, it is pretty clear that the merger of a virtual and real-world economies will increase the MMOG gaming population by creating a much more level playing field for all those interested. This will result in greater player competition (which I see as very positive), and more real-world revenue that will benefit the MMOG developers/publishers and possibly even the player. There is much more to be said about player income, but it's rather complicated, and I am running out of time. =) And just to make sure I have the arguments covered here, just because it makes sense that MMOG's incorporate real-world economics, doesn't mean the game will not be fun to play. While game design and playability may relate slightly, it is mostly an autonomous concept. So, lets try hard not to be confused by this. -Drew