I agree- This is the first real, playable Middle Earth we've ever seen, next to Lord of the Rings monopoly. I have been so many cool places that were either not or barely referenced in the books/movies. I am enjoying this far more than WoW, and the idea that all players are on the good side is awesome in my view as well.
Tarkas - I appreciate your comments, and I agree with your views on economics. My comparisons are for illustration, not for direct correlation. An analogy such as that is to aid in understanding, and does NOT, I repeat NOT imply or put forth literal translation. Having said that, I think that at some point people will realize that farming certain areas of a game will generate quicker cash flow than others, so what's to stop the lay person game subscriber from farming for his/her own benefit? Is there a difference from farming for fake cash and farming for real cash? The end result is the same, an imbalance in economy. I am not an advocate of the "I can so I will" attitude, but why have holes in a game that allow such exploitation? It seems that if there is a serious issue here, its up to the game designers to close off the possibility of farming and selling for real money from the get-go. Why not have a system that is more dynamic as far as content, and don't let those hotspots linger? Why not cut off this process by simply influencing the economy artificially when imbalance occurs? What about making items that are "farmable" worth less money as more is farmed and sold? There are a number of ways this can be taken care of and the problems can be virtually eliminated. I think its really up to the game companies to administer and answer these questions, but also we have to consider the people that are playing games are in a rapidly changing demographic. People that grew up with games are now getting jobs, finishing college and starting families. They don't have the time they used to, so to pay $15 a month for a game they can barely progress in seems like a waste. Maybe Blizzard and other companies should pay more attention to the gamers that can't be fanatics and have real world commitments that supercede game playing. Guild Wars made a good mark in the fact that you don't have to level for 10 hours to get a sense of accomplishment. They really made a good MMO with missions and the ability to play a piece of the game at a time, get up and come back later. I think the industry needs to watch the direction of their gamers and have more sensitivity to people that want to play, but just can't as much as they used to. Maybe then we'll see some truly great advances in this hobby so many enjoy. Maybe games might just get better than we ever thought.
Does this kind of 'virtual capitalism' affect online economies of MMOs? Sure. How is this different from someone in real life finding a 'renewable resource' and making money on it over and over? Take the job market. You might compare it to a particular lucrative camping point on an online game, say compare to a company that holds great employment potential. So certain people who are qualified say, because their parents were wealthy had more opportunity for training and they beat you out of a job. That's considered the job market today, with no complaining. Just like anyone who owns a successful capital venture usually makes their living by doing something well, over and over again. I think game companies should embrace this, as the truth still remains that money can't buy levels...
Slashdot Mirror
Hello all, I put a petition up on iPetition for this issue. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ratemycop/ Thanks.
I agree- This is the first real, playable Middle Earth we've ever seen, next to Lord of the Rings monopoly. I have been so many cool places that were either not or barely referenced in the books/movies. I am enjoying this far more than WoW, and the idea that all players are on the good side is awesome in my view as well.
Charlie
Tarkas - I appreciate your comments, and I agree with your views on economics. My comparisons are for illustration, not for direct correlation. An analogy such as that is to aid in understanding, and does NOT, I repeat NOT imply or put forth literal translation. Having said that, I think that at some point people will realize that farming certain areas of a game will generate quicker cash flow than others, so what's to stop the lay person game subscriber from farming for his/her own benefit? Is there a difference from farming for fake cash and farming for real cash? The end result is the same, an imbalance in economy. I am not an advocate of the "I can so I will" attitude, but why have holes in a game that allow such exploitation? It seems that if there is a serious issue here, its up to the game designers to close off the possibility of farming and selling for real money from the get-go. Why not have a system that is more dynamic as far as content, and don't let those hotspots linger? Why not cut off this process by simply influencing the economy artificially when imbalance occurs? What about making items that are "farmable" worth less money as more is farmed and sold? There are a number of ways this can be taken care of and the problems can be virtually eliminated. I think its really up to the game companies to administer and answer these questions, but also we have to consider the people that are playing games are in a rapidly changing demographic. People that grew up with games are now getting jobs, finishing college and starting families. They don't have the time they used to, so to pay $15 a month for a game they can barely progress in seems like a waste. Maybe Blizzard and other companies should pay more attention to the gamers that can't be fanatics and have real world commitments that supercede game playing. Guild Wars made a good mark in the fact that you don't have to level for 10 hours to get a sense of accomplishment. They really made a good MMO with missions and the ability to play a piece of the game at a time, get up and come back later. I think the industry needs to watch the direction of their gamers and have more sensitivity to people that want to play, but just can't as much as they used to. Maybe then we'll see some truly great advances in this hobby so many enjoy. Maybe games might just get better than we ever thought.
-Charlie
Does this kind of 'virtual capitalism' affect online economies of MMOs? Sure. How is this different from someone in real life finding a 'renewable resource' and making money on it over and over? Take the job market. You might compare it to a particular lucrative camping point on an online game, say compare to a company that holds great employment potential. So certain people who are qualified say, because their parents were wealthy had more opportunity for training and they beat you out of a job. That's considered the job market today, with no complaining. Just like anyone who owns a successful capital venture usually makes their living by doing something well, over and over again. I think game companies should embrace this, as the truth still remains that money can't buy levels...