 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Role Playing Games / EverQuest / April 2005Microsoft endorsing sale of in-game items?
The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot of controversy over the years. I've argued that it's an inevitable extension of the free marketplace to the gaming worlds that are now starting to attract big attention as the big publishers smell all the money being left on the table at eBay and IGE. I haven't actually made up my mind whether I think it's a good thing or not for games, but I know that many people reading this message despise it with a passion. Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot harder than making it in the game worlds, and anything that gives an advantage to one group over the other is bound to piss off a lot of folks. But you know, you still have to be resourceful enough to earn the money one place or the other, right? Anyway, there was a bit of an uproar when SOE's Smedley hinted at the company's sanctioning of this practice in a recent communication, and now Microsoft is suggesting the idea of institutionalizing it in their online game world, at least on the console side initially with the idea of "micro-transactions". Check out the story here. http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gdc_next_xbox/index.htm Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard, Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of most hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal opponents of this practice?  SignatureBob Perez "Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they quit playing." - Oliver Wendell Holmes > The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot of > controversy over the years. I've argued that it's an inevitable extension of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > piss off a lot of folks. But you know, you still have to be resourceful > enough to earn the money one place or the other, right? Everybody is different, so this will mean different things to different people. If you got Gamer A who can only play 1 to 2 hours a day 3 or 4 days a week, after a couple of months he/she won't have that much "really cool stuff"... but for Gamer B who puts in 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week... they often will end up more powerful and with more powerful items after the same amount of months playing. By letting players buy and sell items found in the game, it lets the players who don't play so much have a route to acquire items they might not otherwise normally be able to. To some this might sound "really lame" or "what a waste of 'real' money?" but otherwise you would just end up with the most powerful characters either just hoarding stuff or doling it out as free gifts to the others... that means the items would either be effectivly "gone" from the game (they are in the game, but nobody is using them) or what might be an otherwise cool/valuable item becomes common stock found on the streets. I haven't played anything lately, but I can recall to times gone past in games where the high level players would often just give out all their "useless" stuff to the next 1st level character around the corner. To the new player this stuff is all amazing and godlike compared to the crummy sword they buy at the store for 1gp... but as they use this stuff and get used to players just forking stuff out the true "value" of the item depreciates because "everybody has one of those..." On the other hand... there is resentment when the powerful get something and don't value it because everything else they have is better... IE: the developers might put in a really cool and unique +3 cloak... just to have the item, a group of powerful characters goes out and gets it... but when they have it they realise "geez, we all have +5 cloaks and this is only +3... none of us want this" and so they just put the item into long term storage... effectivly removing it from the game.... which can piss off the lower level players because its better than what they have, but they can't get it because its now gone from the game world. Because these games attract so many different people there is no happy medium: one player might be only able to put in 5 hours a week into a game... somebody else can put in 100... another might work 30hrs a week at a minimum wage job... somebody else makes $100 an hour... So to sell an item for $150 on eBay... one might look at it like "it'll take me 100 hours of playing before I can get that... at 5hrs a week thats almost half a year" or "to buy that costs me almost a full weeks pay!"... while to another player they might see it as "I can play for 1 week and have that item myself!" or "$150? Its 3:30pm now... I'll make that much by 5pm from my salary... why put in 100 hours if I just afford to buy that right now" Clint Even if you -can- sell items for real world cash, that isn't going to stop high level characters from handing over their 'junk' to their friends. Think about it... a +3 cloak that takes 20 hours to get, when you have a +5 cloak... you expect most people to -care- about its market value of $3.50? Maybe you know people for whom 18c/h is a raise and who are looking at making a career at this, but for me, I'd as soon give it away as sell it. If I was looking to make money I'd turn EQ off, work for 15 minutes, and then play EQ for 19.75 hours and end up ahead. Obviously there is a market for games in which you can buy and sell your 'stuff'. Equally obviously there is a market for games in which you *cannot*. Hopefully, eventually we'll each be able to play the kind of game we want. Ideally the ebayers should have a legitmate secure means to transact in their game and the anti-ebayer crowd should have a game that's not polluted with ebayers. >I haven't played anything lately, but I can recall to times gone past in >games where the high level players would often just give out all their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >used to players just forking stuff out the true "value" of the item >depreciates because "everybody has one of those..." A few times, primarily in AC and AO, the generosity of other players actually ruined the game for me. I didn't know how to refuse their gifts without hurting their feelings, and I was left with little desire to continue. I just walked into the world an hour ago, and BAM ! I got 2 mill in my bank account. The challenge and satisfaction from actually _earning_ my way in the game was taken away. Subsequently I learned how to refuse gracefully and let them help me in a non-stuff way. " If you could just safely get me to X city, I'd be eternally grateful " type thing. [ even if I didn't want to go ]. Jim >>I haven't played anything lately, but I can recall to times gone past in >>games where the high level players would often just give out all their [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >a non-stuff way. " If you could just safely get me to X city, I'd be eternally >grateful " type thing. [ even if I didn't want to go ]. Interesting. In Real Work, my biggest bitch was people who wanted to "help". I had no skills to give them a task that helped get them momentarily out of the way. :-) /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. I liked the way EQ2 handled the situation. Most magic items must be 'attuned' to you, meaning you can either use it or hand it/sell it, but not both (i.e. once it is attuned, nobody else can use it). To me, measures like this or some sort of item decay are necessary if you want to have crafting being any part of your economy (otherwise, say 6 months after game is released, how could a new crafter compete at all against all the drops from mobs that have been generated, plus vs. all the crafters that came before him, etc?) Of course, you'd still have people making or finding these things and selling them in their 'unattuned' form, but how's this any different from people doing the same thing in game? Obviously, another thing to add is that the game should limit an item's effectiveness to the level of the wielder, in other words, me wielding Excalibur shouldn't make me a better swordsman than an experienced fighter with an iron sword. > The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot of > controversy over the years. I've argued that it's an inevitable extension of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > piss off a lot of folks. But you know, you still have to be resourceful > enough to earn the money one place or the other, right? I think much of the opposition comes from a (justified) fear that in-game sale of items will lead to the game becoming more expensive to play. Want to see the interesting new zones? No problem, but you'll have to fork over $3 for a new sword if you want to survive. People don't like unpredictable cost models, which is one of the reasons many will happily pay $50/month for phone service with unlimited long-distance--even if their total bill on a metered plan would be less. > Anyway, there was a bit of an uproar when SOE's Smedley hinted at the > company's sanctioning of this practice in a recent communication, and now [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gdc_next_xbox/index.htm I predict this will go over like a lead balloon, for the above reasons. From the article: Racing game enthusiasts, for example, will be able to buy a faster car to give them an edge in the game for a slight bit more, should they wish. I really doubt that's going to fly. "I paid $50 for this lousy game, and now they want me to pay more to race the car I want!?" It might be possible to manage it with a game that sells for $10, and makes up the extra by selling in-game upgrades, I guess. (Following the model of Magic: The Gathering.) > Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard, > Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of most > hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal > opponents of this practice? Probably won't affect it at all. If it does, it'll kill the game. Vanguard will promptly get a reputation as "that game where you have to pay for uber equipment if you want to see any of the content", regardless of whether it's justified or not. I really don't see that happening, however, given McQuaid's opinions. - Damien <snip> > If it does, it'll kill the game. Vanguard will promptly get a > reputation as "that game where you have to pay for uber equipment if > you want to see any of the content", regardless of whether it's > justified or not. I really don't see that happening, however, given > McQuaid's opinions. The only problem is that it isn't Brad's money on the line. If MS says you'll do it then he has three options. Either cave in and let it happen, quit and publically oppose it or do nothing. SignatureRJB 3/10/2005 10:56:57 AM Question: If you could live forever, would you and why? Answer: I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever. -Miss Alabama, in the 1994 Miss Universe contest Damien Neil <neild-usenet2@misago.org> once tried to test me with: >> http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gdc_next_xbox/ind >> ex.htm [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > makes up the extra by selling in-game upgrades, I guess. (Following > the model of Magic: The Gathering.) And like MTG, I will not play it. I really WANTED to play MTG, because I love the card game (with real cards). But I could not see myself paying real-card prices for virtual cards. SignatureKnight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer. > Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot > harder than making it in the game worlds, The exact opposite is true. Imagine spending six months of full-time work online to build up a character that you then sell for what...$5000? That means you can earn $10,000 per year. Hardly enough to quit your day job...unless you're a teenager with too much time on their hands, in which case 10k is a sweet chunk of cash! >> Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot >> harder than making it in the game worlds, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > job...unless you're a teenager with too much time on their hands, in which > case 10k is a sweet chunk of cash! Well, my point was that some resentment may be based on the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. The guy who doesn't have a lot of disposable income wants to compete with the guy who does. If it were just a matter of grinding out crafting levels and making money in game, THAT he could do and on that playing field he could win. But in the real world money doesn't come that easily, it's far harder to earn and in that race he is disadvantaged and therefore resentful. SignatureBob Perez "Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they quit playing." - Oliver Wendell Holmes >>> Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot >>> harder than making it in the game worlds, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > money doesn't come that easily, it's far harder to earn and in that race > he is disadvantaged and therefore resentful. But having and not having is a part of real life. Letting the online world approach the inequities of the real world just makes the online experience all the more, umm, 'magical'...yeah, that's the word I was looking for. >>> Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot >>> harder than making it in the game worlds, >"Grackle" <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote in message >> The exact opposite is true. Imagine spending six months of full-time work >> online to build up a character that you then sell for what...$5000? >> That means you can earn $10,000 per year. That's probably high for full-time play for fun. I'd expect it's low if you play as if it were work. If you concentrate on working efficiently, playing those servers with the most customers, camping only items which sell well, and truly optimizing your use of time, and being willing to do some trading (buy low, sell high) in addition to selling items you acquire yourself, I'd guess you can double that figure, probably more. >> Hardly enough to quit your day >> job...unless you're a teenager with too much time on their hands, in which >> case 10k is a sweet chunk of cash! Umm, not enough to quit your cushy first-world professional job, maybe. It's a huge step up for workers in many places in the world, and in the US for a small-fraction-but-large-number of adults. Fortunately (for those who don't like the practice), the market is very limited, and won't be able to support many professionals. >Well, my point was that some resentment may be based on the disparity >between the haves and the have-nots. Yes. The resentment comes from that. The market ALSO comes from that. There are haves and have-nots in the amount of time/energy available to play too. Some who have time and no money feel their time gets devalued by real money sales. Some trade time for money by selling items. Some who have money and no time feel like they'll never catch up, and get frustrated with the game. Some trade money for time and buy items. >disposable income wants to compete with the guy who does. If it were just a >matter of grinding out crafting levels and making money in game, THAT he >could do and on that playing field he could win. But in the real world money >doesn't come that easily, it's far harder to earn and in that race he is >disadvantaged and therefore resentful. What of the person who doesn't have time to grind out levels and still wants to play/compete? -- Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/> > What of the person who doesn't have time to grind out levels and still wants to > play/compete? What of them? You make it sound like they're somehow entitled... Consider Chess ... Gary Kasparov doesn't play in the same league as Joe Idiot who doesn't have time to learn the game, study it, practice it, and earn his rank in tournaments... still if Joe Idiot wants to compete he should be able to buy a ranking on ebay and play with the Tier 1 players, right? The very idea that just because they -want- to be the best that somehow entitles them to it is just pathetic. >dagon@dagon.net says... >> What of the person who doesn't have time to grind out levels and still >> wants to play/compete? >What of them? You make it sound like they're somehow entitled... So the argument becomes: people with time and no money are entitled to play, and people with money and no time are not? >Consider Chess ... Gary Kasparov doesn't play in the same league as Joe >Idiot who doesn't have time to learn the game, study it, practice it, >and earn his rank in tournaments... still if Joe Idiot wants to compete >he should be able to buy a ranking on ebay and play with the Tier 1 >players, right? Chess is a competition, RPGs are not. >The very idea that just because they -want- to be the best that somehow >entitles them to it is just pathetic. Ahh, you're confusing "want to be the best" with "want to experience the game". -- Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/> > >dagon@dagon.net says... > >> What of the person who doesn't have time to grind out levels and still [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Chess is a competition, RPGs are not. Maybe a single player RPG isn't but MMOGs sure are. And it's MMOGs that we are discussing. A lot of them are player versus player and even the ones that aren't have competition. 2 people want to join a group which has space for one. 1 has double the firepower of the other. Either that person earned it (which is what players of MMOGs expect) or he just bought it. The person with the firepower is going to get the spot in most cases. Now, if the person earned it within the game, that can be respected by the loser of the competition for the place. But if they got it because Daddy slipped the gaming company a little 'tip' then how do you think the loser's going to feel? And what if the company makes it nigh impossible for someone who pays the stated cost of the game to ever aquire that firepower? > >The very idea that just because they -want- to be the best that somehow > >entitles them to it is just pathetic. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/> I want to experience the game too. If we are playing the same PVP game, should I be able to totally own you with my leet credit card skills? Should someone be deceived into playing a game thinking they'll be able to experience the content described on the game, only to find they need to make additional 'micropayments' not mentioned on the box or the initial contract in order to be competitive? I would have thought the local equivalent of consumer affairs would have a few problems with that. >> Chess is a competition, RPGs are not. > >Maybe a single player RPG isn't but MMOGs sure are. And it's MMOGs that we >are discussing. A lot of them are player versus player and even the ones >that aren't have competition. You can go through 5+ years of EQ and never have dueled. Saying most are PVP is wrong. They may have PVP options or designated servers but but most are not in that vein. And competition is not what I see most of the time, rather cooperation. Groups may compete for locale or who gets to XYZ zone first but direct competition is very little, from what I've seen anyway. >2 people want to join a group which has space for one. 1 has double the >firepower of the other. Either that person earned it (which is what players >of MMOGs expect) or he just bought it. The person with the firepower is >going to get the spot in most cases. They'll get it once. Because, as I stated before, if the guy in uber gear blows goats he's not going to get a group with those people again. And after a few of those word will get around. Just because someone has firepower it doesn't mean they know what they're doing. And skill is more important than gear, imo. >Now, if the person earned it within the >game, that can be respected by the loser of the competition for the place. >But if they got it because Daddy slipped the gaming company a little 'tip' >then how do you think the loser's going to feel? Well, if you argue this then the the reverse is also true. Which is what the whole discussion was about. I find it doesn't really matter. I've not grouped with uber geared people because they sucked. Now if I'm trying to break into PoTB or something maybe gear becomes an issue, but you can have a badass tank that is an idiot and everyone loses. Point is, just because they haven't played every day to get the uber gear doesn't mean they aren't skilled at the game. >And what if the company makes it nigh impossible for someone who pays the >stated cost of the game to ever aquire that firepower? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I want to experience the game too. If we are playing the same PVP game, >should I be able to totally own you with my leet credit card skills? Not the same, as I stated above. It wouldn't matter how much uber gear I bought in Half-Life, I would get owned by the skilled guy with a pistol. It's just a matter of skill for the game in question. I know a few people who had not played EQ before but had played D&D for years. Once they got the basic mechanics down they rocked. Not because of gear but because of skill in an RPG. By contrast, I can't play an FPS for crap. No matter what gear I have. >Should someone be deceived into playing a game thinking they'll be able to >experience the content described on the game, only to find they need to make >additional 'micropayments' not mentioned on the box or the initial contract >in order to be competitive? I would have thought the local equivalent of >consumer affairs would have a few problems with that. Again, not the same thing. Skill will (almost) always win out over gear. The race car analogy was a good one. If you can't drive worth crap anyway, what good is a Ferrari going to do you? You'll just go out in flames faster is all. ~F > >> Chess is a competition, RPGs are not. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are PVP is wrong. They may have PVP options or designated servers but > but most are not in that vein. I can't agree with you there. Everquest is pretty unusual in the low PvP component. SWG, WOW, anarchy online, Ultima, DAoC... I think all the top MMOGs except everquest and even then, most people have duelled in EQ and the PvP servers were not unimportant, or why would they have had several? > And competition is not what I see most of the time, rather > cooperation. Groups may compete for locale or who gets to XYZ zone > first but direct competition is very little, from what I've seen > anyway. In EQ1 competition for camps was pretty intense. If you couldn't progress in PoP because an uberguild was killing a particular god over and over, you might be pretty frustrated. If you found out the reason they could do that was because they inherited wealth, how would you feel? EQ2 is much less competitive but I still think a guild is going to take the person with clearly better gear if they have to choose, and guild sizes are small. That's competition. It should be a fair one with the person earning their guy, not using Daddies' American Express (TM). other. Either that person earned it (which is what players > >of MMOGs expect) or he just bought it. The person with the firepower is > >going to get the spot in most cases. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > someone has firepower it doesn't mean they know what they're doing. > And skill is more important than gear, imo. Depends on the difference the designers built into the game. If the difference is small, sure, skill would help, although EQ2 so far hasn't been terribly complicated for the melee classes I've played. If you accept that designers will reward you with better gear the more you pay, then it must be very tempting to have it that someone who's paying a lot gets a lot... and if you have the choice of a tank with 4K but skill, or 12k but he's just a rich prat, sure, you might go for the 4K guy, but most people won't. Besides, i recall lots of stories of tanks in EQ1 going to the loo and leaving the toon to bash while they were afk, with no-one the wiser. How much skill does that take? > >Now, if the person earned it within the > >game, that can be respected by the loser of the competition for the place. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Point is, just because they haven't played every day to get the uber > gear doesn't mean they aren't skilled at the game. The example given in the original article was that if you payed extra, you would get a faster car, presumably faster than one you could gain from skill. If this carries over, then the skilled but poor guy is going to find they hit a wall, and the rich prat will buy their way past. > >And what if the company makes it nigh impossible for someone who pays the > >stated cost of the game to ever aquire that firepower? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > By contrast, I can't play an FPS for crap. No matter what gear I > have. Half life has it that everyone has access to the same gear. If you can buy powered armor, but the other guy can't earn it via skill and can't afford it because they don't have your income, then will their trickiness with a pistol really count? > >Should someone be deceived into playing a game thinking they'll be able to > >experience the content described on the game, only to find they need to make [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ~F Then it all depends on how much the difference the designers allow ... but i wasn't using an analogy in the car racing example, that was the one the company in the original example wanted to implement. Now, if everyone has vw's, and you have a ferrari, maybe you will still lose the race... but the handicap the other racers face would be terrible, and that's why in real life, we have limits on the specs for the cars in races, so it's skill against skill, and not wealth versus wealth. > >dagon@dagon.net says... > >> What of the person who doesn't have time to grind out levels and still [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So the argument becomes: people with time and no money are entitled to play, > and people with money and no time are not? That's how life works too you idiot. If I'm a lawyer and I work 100 hours a week... guess what ... I'm not on the local hockey team, and having a fat wallet shouldn't let me buy my way to playing goalie in the finals just because I'm too busy and important to show up to practices and lesser games. Set your priorities and live with them. > >Consider Chess ... Gary Kasparov doesn't play in the same league as Joe > >Idiot who doesn't have time to learn the game, study it, practice it, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Chess is a competition, RPGs are not. Read your own post... "What of the person who doesn't have time to grind out levels and still wants to play/compete?" "Competition" was your own contribution to this discussion. > >The very idea that just because they -want- to be the best that somehow > >entitles them to it is just pathetic. > > Ahh, you're confusing "want to be the best" with "want to experience the > game". No. Log in and kill some rats in freeport, you are experiencing the game. *You* want to experience the endgame without actually playing to get there. That's not how games work. Sure its ok to cheat in single player console games to unlock the end game stuff before yor rental expires if your too lousy to actually beat the game...but that is disallowed in multiplayer games for a reason. > > >dagon@dagon.net says... > > >> What of the person who doesn't have time to grind out levels and still [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > finals just because I'm too busy and important to show up to practices > and lesser games. But if he could buy exercise equipment so good that in a mere hour a week he could develop the skills necessary to be a great goalie, why wouldn't he be able to play? - Gerry Quinn > > > >dagon@dagon.net says... > > > >> What of the person who doesn't have time to grind out levels and still [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - Gerry Quinn If (exercise equipment exists to make someone a great goalie) then (person who uses equip should be allowed to compete). Unfortunately said equipment does not and can not exist, because it's not exercise that makes a great goalie, although great goalies have to exercise. So the argument falls down at that point. Money doesn't buy you skill, and if it is used so that the rules of the game are altered, then that is called corruption. The equivalent in your analogy would be bribing the ref so he pretends the "great goalie" really can deflect a ball, despite all evidence to the contrary. In article <APT1e.15823$C7.833@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, kitchen@fis.org.nz says... > "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message > > But if he could buy exercise equipment so good that in a mere hour a > > week he could develop the skills necessary to be a great goalie, why [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > pretends the "great goalie" really can deflect a ball, despite all evidence > to the contrary. What if magic ball deflecters are perfectly legal in the game, and he has bought one? As distinct from spending ten years hewing it from a magic tree. - Gerry Quinn > > "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Gerry Quinn I don't know, since magic anythings aren't a part of soccer. I think you might be thinking of Quidditch. > In article <APT1e.15823$C7.833@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > kitchen@fis.org.nz says... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > has bought one? As distinct from spending ten years hewing it from a > magic tree. /shrug You already don't have to hand craft your own helmet in hockey either. Why bring magical equipment into it? If your at the park setting up a chess game and some guy walks up with a box of queens and offers to sell you an extra one... What would stop you? > If your at the park setting up a chess game and some guy walks up with a > box of queens and offers to sell you an extra one... Why? You couldn't use it in the game, since the rules limit you to one, and all queens do the same thing. In the same way that if you buy someone's Soopar Sord in EQ, you cannot use that and your existing sword at the same time. (Grow an extra arm?) Buying a character or item on eBay or wherever is simply buying someone else's *time*. It does not affect the game in any way - the character or item is already present. The farming and exploiting associated with eBayers, now that is a different story, and can be game-breaking for other players. > > If your at the park setting up a chess game and some guy walks up with a > > box of queens and offers to sell you an extra one... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > associated with eBayers, now that is a different story, and can be > game-breaking for other players. But you are paying with real cash, and that brings in real problems, like tax, organised crime, theft and murder. http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Online-gamer-killed-for-selling-virtual-weapon/ 2005/03/30/1111862440188.html Without violating copyright, the gist of this is a sale of a weapon in a MMOG for real cash went wrong and a guy was stabbed to death. > > If your at the park setting up a chess game and some guy walks up with a > > box of queens and offers to sell you an extra one... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > someone's Soopar Sord in EQ, you cannot use that and your existing > sword at the same time. (Grow an extra arm?) I think one of the problems with this argument is that the only example the company provided was that in a car racing game, the richest player gets to have a better car, but what was not mentioned was whether the same car would be attainable by skill. If not, would you still play? If the rules are bent by cash, then why not have MSChess, where the more you pay, the more pieces you get, and every $500 gets you an automatic checkmate? If a MMOG bends the rules for the people who pay the most then why not have some player buy their way to Shiva-dom? > If the rules are bent by cash, then why not have MSChess, where the more you > pay, the more pieces you get, and every $500 gets you an automatic > checkmate? Why not, if that's what people want to play! - Gerry Quinn > > If the rules are bent by cash, then why not have MSChess, where the more you > > pay, the more pieces you get, and every $500 gets you an automatic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Gerry Quinn People obviously don't want to play that, or it would already exist. There's few games in the world where money makes much of a difference, and none I'm aware of where the richest always wins. What this looks like is corruption by stealth; slowly increasing the advantages you can buy, whether it be a faster car than your competitor in a car race, or better gear in a MMOG. If people don't object early, then the danger is that they won't have a choice later, at least for those games run by greedy multinational corporations. >>>If the rules are bent by cash, then why not have MSChess, where the more > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > choice later, at least for those games run by greedy multinational > corporations. The problem is too that you will have people with "unlimited" funds with uber characters ruling the game, while people with limited funds will live like real life. For example. If I'm Bill Gates, I basically have unlimited funds for the game and on day one can buy all the best stuff. For example. If I'm Average Joe, my disposable income per month is about $1,000. I can only buy AT MOST $1,000 worth of game stuff...So I'm always only going to have a character that is behind the power curve. > "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message > > > If the rules are bent by cash, then why not have MSChess, where the more > you > > > pay, the more pieces you get, and every $500 gets you an automatic > > > checkmate? > > > > Why not, if that's what people want to play! > People obviously don't want to play that, or it would already exist. There's > few games in the world where money makes much of a difference, and none I'm > aware of where the richest always wins. What this looks like is corruption > by stealth; slowly increasing the advantages you can buy, whether it be a > faster car than your competitor in a car race, or better gear in a MMOG. You're projecting what you would do, and using it to determine that the other guy is greedy... > If people don't object early, then the danger is that they won't have a > choice later, at least for those games run by greedy multinational > corporations. All the more room for indie games. IF that is what people want - a choice you don't seem prepared to give them. Magic The Gathering was a success, despite having the features you criticise. And if people want and are prepared to pay games where use of real-world money is not allowed, why wouldn't greedy corporations provide them as an alternative? - Gerry Quinn > > "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > All the more room for indie games. IF that is what people want - a > choice you don't seem prepared to give them. > Magic The Gathering was a > success, despite having the features you criticise. MtG never pretended to be anything other than a collectable card game. You bought your first starter deck knowing you'd be buying more cards if you wanted to compete. > And if people want and are prepared to pay games where use of real-world > money is not allowed, why wouldn't greedy corporations provide them as > an alternative? Many "Greedy corporations" haven't operated in a free market economy for a very long time. The oligopolies and virtual monopolies in -many- business sectors precludes market forces from acting normally. > > Magic The Gathering was a > > success, despite having the features you criticise. > > MtG never pretended to be anything other than a collectable card game. > You bought your first starter deck knowing you'd be buying more cards if > you wanted to compete. Which will be the case with games where you use real world money to buy virtual stuff. If not immediately, then soon. Indeed, MtG did NOT really say this upfront. Their rules contained an 'ante' system where you could win cards. A player might conclude that with sufficient skill, he could win enough cards not to have to buy any. Of course, people PREFERRED to buy cards than gamble with what they had. > > And if people want and are prepared to pay games where use of real-world > > money is not allowed, why wouldn't greedy corporations provide them as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a very long time. The oligopolies and virtual monopolies in -many- > business sectors precludes market forces from acting normally. It seems to me that it is you who is trying to prevent market forces from operating normally. - Gerry Quinn > > > Magic The Gathering was a > > > success, despite having the features you criticise. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Which will be the case with games where you use real world money to buy > virtual stuff. If not immediately, then soon. While that is true its incomplete. Its highly probable that these systems will be retrofitted onto existing games. Unlike your other post where you observed that people who didn't like magic could go right on playing crazy-8s or chess failed to account for the fact that people who like playing EQ without microtransactions are at the mercy of Sony. If Sony introduces them we can't play without them. If the other major corporations follow suit there will be no options available. > Indeed, MtG did NOT really say this upfront. Their rules contained an > 'ante' system where you could win cards. A player might conclude that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It seems to me that it is you who is trying to prevent market forces > from operating normally. No. I'm just observing that mmogs do not exist in a functioning free market in the first place, so assuming entrepreneurial capitalism will step up to correct a market failure is demented. Next you'll be pondering why there isn't a way to watch TV without network logos dancing through the programs... surely if people wanted that (and we all know they do) then someone would do it... (which we all know better than to hold our breath for). > > > MtG never pretended to be anything other than a collectable card game. > > > You bought your first starter deck knowing you'd be buying more cards if [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > them. If the other major corporations follow suit there will be no > options available. If people don't like it, why wouldn't a company start a new game where it's not permitted? Or have different servers as is done for PvP? Companies don't get rich by providing services their customers hate. > > > Many "Greedy corporations" haven't operated in a free market economy for > > > a very long time. The oligopolies and virtual monopolies in -many- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > market in the first place, so assuming entrepreneurial capitalism will > step up to correct a market failure is demented. Looks like a free market to me. What's wrong with it? Entry costs to MMORPGs (not MMOGs in general) are a bit higher than many internet activities, but still low compared to many bricks and mortar businesses. If you want to start a new MMMORPG tomorrow, you can. (And you can run less massive online games with shareware levels of funding.) > Next you'll be pondering why there isn't a way to watch TV without > network logos dancing through the programs... surely if people wanted > that (and we all know they do) then someone would do it... (which we all > know better than to hold our breath for). Clearly you don't want it enough to switch off. It is a result, of course, of free-market success - the logos are there because hundreds of channels are available to you. Back in the days when we had only a few state-funded channels, there were no logos. But sure, the free market isn't going to preoduce perfection. But it tends to be a lot better than the alternative. - Gerry Quinn > > > > MtG never pretended to be anything other than a collectable card game. > > > > You bought your first starter deck knowing you'd be buying more cards if [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > it's not permitted? Or have different servers as is done for PvP? > Companies don't get rich by providing services their customers hate. Like ads at the movies, for example. I mean, people must love them... or movie theatres would offer alternative showings without them... right? Companies get rich by offering services that people will put up with because they don't have a choice, because the companies form monopolies. People may hate them, but they feel helpless. > > > > Many "Greedy corporations" haven't operated in a free market economy for > > > > a very long time. The oligopolies and virtual monopolies in -many- [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > businesses. If you want to start a new MMMORPG tomorrow, you can. (And > you can run less massive online games with shareware levels of funding.) Who exactly is the "you" in the " If you want to start a new MMMORPG tomorrow, you can. "? Bill Gates perhaps? Not many individuals have the dosh to develop, market, mantain a MMORPG. > > Next you'll be pondering why there isn't a way to watch TV without > > network logos dancing through the programs... surely if people wanted [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - Gerry Quinn Hundreds of channels controlled by how many companies? If there were a billion channels but they were all owned by Rupert Murdoch, would you say that was a triumph of the free market?Or perhaps the term "cartel" is more accurate, is that a triumph of the free market as well? Like when OPEC created the Oil Shock? After all, if oil gets too expensive, you can always just stop using it. > > If people don't like it, why wouldn't a company start a new game where > > it's not permitted? Or have different servers as is done for PvP? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they don't have a choice, because the companies form monopolies. People may > hate them, but they feel helpless. Ads at the movies are nothing to do with 'monopolies', except maybe in the context of the local cinema having a monopoly. And do people 'hate' them? I don't think so. They're more the sort of thing that people like to moan about. > > > No. I'm just observing that mmogs do not exist in a functioning free > > > market in the first place, so assuming entrepreneurial capitalism will [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > tomorrow, you can. "? Bill Gates perhaps? Not many individuals have the dosh > to develop, market, mantain a MMORPG. It doesn't require Gatesian mounds of lucre. Plenty of businesses compete in industries with much greater startup costs. > Hundreds of channels controlled by how many companies? If there were a > billion channels but they were all owned by Rupert Murdoch, would you say > that was a triumph of the free market?Or perhaps the term "cartel" is more > accurate, is that a triumph of the free market as well? Like when OPEC > created the Oil Shock? And DOES Rupert Murdoch own them all? I think not. (And if he did, I should think that it wouldn't be hard to get funding for an alternative - imagine the popularity of a single channel that was outside such a monopoly.) > After all, if oil gets too expensive, you can always just stop using it. That will happen. - Gerry Quinn > > > > MtG never pretended to be anything other than a collectable card game. > > > > You bought your first starter deck knowing you'd be buying more cards if [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > it's not permitted? Or have different servers as is done for PvP? > Companies don't get rich by providing services their customers hate. > > > > Many "Greedy corporations" haven't operated in a free market economy for > > > > a very long time. The oligopolies and virtual monopolies in -many- [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > businesses. If you want to start a new MMMORPG tomorrow, you can. (And > you can run less massive online games with shareware levels of funding.) Even if it were so trivial to simply publish a game on the scale of Everquest. (And its not). You're still failing to recognize that it wouldn't be everquest. If microtransactions are retrofitted to Everquest, thats it, everquest players will have either suck it up, or abandon their level 70 characters with 400AAs. They can't take those characters with them. Everquest is a micro-monopoly. If I'm playing chess at your house and you go and change the rules I can go play chess somewhere else. I don't have to quit playing chess and take up checkers. One does not have that choice with MMORPGs. > > Next you'll be pondering why there isn't a way to watch TV without > > network logos dancing through the programs... surely if people wanted > > that (and we all know they do) then someone would do it... (which we all > > know better than to hold our breath for). > > Clearly you don't want it enough to switch off. That's actually irrelevant. This discussion isn't about whether or not I have the option of choosing to quit watching TV or play mmogs entirely. Its about whether I have the option to watch TV in the manner that I prefer. > It is a result, of > course, of free-market success - the logos are there because hundreds of > channels are available to you. So what? I don't need logos for that. I know what channel I'm on, my digital box tells me the station name, whats on, whats on next, whats on next tuesday, and so on at the push of a button. In addition they flash their own station commercials during commercial breaks to remind me in case I've gone brain dead. There is no need for the logos bouncing around during the actual content. And no way to avoid it if it offends you. (Sure you could make some ridiculous suggestion about how I could not watch any TV, but that undermines your own premise that if people want something someone will provide it. If I have to stop watching TV then clearly someone is NOT providing it. Same could very well happen to MMOGS. > Back in the days when we had only a few > state-funded channels, there were no logos. And now we have a few hundred channels all owned by a few corporations. > But sure, the free market isn't going to preoduce perfection. But it > tends to be a lot better than the alternative. If only it were an actual free market, then it would actaully be -good-. A few hundred channels owned by a few hundred companies. <snip> >If only it were an actual free market, then it would actaully be -good-. >A few hundred channels owned by a few hundred companies. Oh, c'mon. You have got to know better than that. There is no such thing as a "free market". A regulated market is by definition not free. In an unregulated market the winning competitors eliminate (or absorb) their defeated rivals. Once they've reached the largest size they can successfully manage, they enter into price-fixing cartels with one another and thereby create defacto monopolies which stifle competition and manage the decidedly unfree market to the overwhelming advantage of the monopolists, with as little as possible for the interests of others. kaev > <snip> > >If only it were an actual free market, then it would actaully be -good-. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to the overwhelming advantage of the monopolists, with as little > as possible for the interests of others. Bingo! As I said, relying on 'free market economic forces' to resolve market failures is demented. As you so eloquently said, "there is no such thing as a free market". > >If only it were an actual free market, then it would actaully be -good-. > >A few hundred channels owned by a few hundred companies. A free market would look nothing like that. > Oh, c'mon. You have got to know better than that. There is no > such thing as a "free market". It's an abstract model, like an ideal gas. Never realised fully in practice, but a useful model for understanding economics. > A regulated market is by definition not free. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to the overwhelming advantage of the monopolists, with as little > as possible for the interests of others. And if barriers to entry are reasonably low, this plan doesn't work. - Gerry Quinn >> >If only it were an actual free market, then it would actaully be -good-. >> >A few hundred channels owned by a few hundred companies. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >And if barriers to entry are reasonably low, this plan doesn't work. If there's enough money in the market the monopolists will create entry barriers sufficient to block new competitors. Historicly, these barriers have often been implemented outside the market itself (murder, vandalism, and arson have all been popular over the years). I'll admit that some markets are, for various reasons, resistant to monopoly forces (flea markets and farmer's markets come to mind). My "no such thing as a free market" comment was a bit of mild hyperbole. But only a bit. kaev > >And if barriers to entry are reasonably low, this plan doesn't work. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > itself (murder, vandalism, and arson have all been popular over > the years). It doesn't require companies. Union thugs have done as much to enforce their own illegal monopolies on companies. And look at the modern filth who distribute software designed for the use of pirates. In any case, I think it is improbable that MMORPG developers would resort to such extremes. - Gerry Quinn > > Looks like a free market to me. What's wrong with it? Entry costs to > > MMORPGs (not MMOGs in general) are a bit higher than many internet [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Everquest, thats it, everquest players will have either suck it up, or > abandon their level 70 characters with 400AAs. How tragic. Imagine having to be exposed to the enjoyment of a different game, because two years of safe and repetitive monster bashing no longer commands the awe and respect of all. > They can't take those characters with them. > > Everquest is a micro-monopoly. If I'm playing chess at your house and > you go and change the rules I can go play chess somewhere else. I don't > have to quit playing chess and take up checkers. One does not have that > choice with MMORPGs. Sure you do. > > > Next you'll be pondering why there isn't a way to watch TV without > > > network logos dancing through the programs... surely if people wanted [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Its about whether I have the option to watch TV in the manner that I > prefer. So you're saying that the absence of SkittleBrau is a market failure? > > But sure, the free market isn't going to preoduce perfection. But it > > tends to be a lot better than the alternative. > > If only it were an actual free market, then it would actaully be -good-. > A few hundred channels owned by a few hundred companies. That doesn't sound very much like a free market - it sounds like a severely restricted one. - Gerry Quinn > > > But sure, the free market isn't going to preoduce perfection. But it > > > tends to be a lot better than the alternative. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That doesn't sound very much like a free market - it sounds like a > severely restricted one. I was going to reply to your various points... but when I got to this it became clear there would be little point; you seem to not even know what a free market is. > > > If only it were an actual free market, then it would actaully be -good-. > > > A few hundred channels owned by a few hundred companies. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > became clear there would be little point; you seem to not even know what > a free market is. It's the other way round - you don't seem to know it. Quite obviously a market where each of hundreds of companies owns exactly one television channel must be severely restricted by some means. Such an outcome would be utterly improbable in a free market. Companies delivering what customers wanted would grow and develop spin-offs, while those offering a poor quality service or failing to control their costs would disappear. - Gerry Quinn > > > > > If only it were an actual free market, then it would actaully be -good-. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > while those offering a poor quality service or failing to control their > costs would disappear. Lol. Sure. I fully admit my example of a functional free market is an unachievable ideal... ...given that a if such a market existed and was "free" it would *inevitably* cease to be free due to forces inherent in free market economics. Free market capitalism doesn't work. That said, the hypothetical 100 stations owning a single channel is a free market. It won't be for long but it is free *now*. > > > I was going to reply to your various points... but when I got to this it > > > became clear there would be little point; you seem to not even know what [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > *inevitably* cease to be free due to forces inherent in free market > economics. You seem to use the word 'free' to mean 'heavily regulated by the state, in order to prop up failures and cripple successful companies'. Economists don't. > Free market capitalism doesn't work. > > That said, the hypothetical 100 stations owning a single channel is a > free market. It won't be for long but it is free *now*. I recommend you take a basic course in economics before posting again on issues relating to free markets. - Gerry Quinn > > > > I was going to reply to your various points... but when I got to this it > > > > became clear there would be little point; you seem to not even know what [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You seem to use the word 'free' to mean 'heavily regulated by the > state, in order to prop up failures and cripple successful companies'. Is that what I "seem" to have said? Really now? That's very odd. Because that isn't what I said at all. > Economists don't. Good for them. Presumably they can understand the difference between an unregulated free market with many participants (e.g. 100) and an unregulated free market with 3 participants... because you evidently can't. It *seems* in your world if there's more than a couple participants the *only* possible explanation is heavy regulation. Some Ebay categories are good examples of a functioning unregulated free market with hundreds of independant sellers of the same goods where in those categories pricing based on supply and demand functions nearly perfectly. (Many sellers, high substitutable, goods are sold at the maximum price they can be sold at to each seller, a textbook ideal market) Of course, the state could be 'heavily regulating it to prop up failures and cripple the sucessful'. > > That said, the hypothetical 100 stations owning a single channel is a > > free market. It won't be for long but it is free *now*. > > I recommend you take a basic course in economics before posting again > on issues relating to free markets. Its funny that is what you'd recommend. You see it strikes me that it should be you in that course. Tell you what, you investigate ebay a little more and let me know how much state regulation you find propping up failures and crippling the successful. When you don't find any: sign yourself up. > > You seem to use the word 'free' to mean 'heavily regulated by the > > state, in order to prop up failures and cripple successful companies'. > > Is that what I "seem" to have said? Really now? That's very odd. Because > that isn't what I said at all. You spoke of hundreds of companies, each with one channel. That condition would be completely abnormal for a free market. THe only way I can conceive of it is right after the channels were sold or otherwise issued in a completely unfree and regulated manner, exactly one per customer, irrespective of what they are willing to pay. And if there is a free market in channels, there will almost instantly be a re- distribution that will result in a distribution of companies with different numbers of channels. > Good for them. Presumably they can understand the difference between an > unregulated free market with many participants (e.g. 100) and an > unregulated free market with 3 participants... because you evidently > can't. It *seems* in your world if there's more than a couple > participants the *only* possible explanation is heavy regulation. That's not what you described. You described a distribution in which all companies effectively have a single channel each. That is utterly implausible in a free market. > Some Ebay categories are good examples of a functioning unregulated free > market with hundreds of independant sellers of the same goods where in > those categories pricing based on supply and demand functions nearly > perfectly. (Many sellers, high substitutable, goods are sold at the > maximum price they can be sold at to each seller, a textbook ideal > market) Are you speaking of categories where a person requires either 1 or 0 such item, and the items are being sold second hand? That has little relevance to most markets. Because of a particular circumstance, each seller has exactly one item to sell, and each buyer buys once, so naturally there are far more buyers and sellers numerically than in normal markets. - Gerry Quinn > > > You seem to use the word 'free' to mean 'heavily regulated by the > > > state, in order to prop up failures and cripple successful companies'. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > all companies effectively have a single channel each. That is utterly > implausible in a free market. Ah, well that explains it. You've latched onto an irrelevant detail. I couldn't care less if some stations were larger than others, owning more than a single channel. The point was that there is a large number of suppliers, not how many channels they owned. Hell, 100 stations each owning 100 channels would be fine. Or even if some owned 101 while others owned 50 while still others owned 61. > > Some Ebay categories are good examples of a functioning unregulated free > > market with hundreds of independant sellers of the same goods where in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > naturally there are far more buyers and sellers numerically than in > normal markets. You don't use ebay much do you? If you did, you'd be aware that many sellers use ebay as an alternate store front to their game stores, book stores, whatevers... they can run hundreds of auctions a year for the same items. Joe Blow cleaning out his garage may only have one X to sell, but any of the thousands of ebay power sellers moving thousands of items per year clearly have more sophisticated supply mechanisms than "what can I find in my basement?". And ebay isn't an isolated phenomena like you seem to think. I can buy a new motherboard from any of at least 50 independant computer shops within the city from big names to mom&pops, nevermind going online... and that motherboard can be any of 2 dozen or more brands from PCChips to Intel. I can buy stereo interconnect cabling from any of hundreds of online retailers, all independantly operated, from grossly overpriced "Monster" brand to equivalent but 1/4 the cost, to dirt cheap and made like sh.t and everything in between... > > That's not what you described. You described a distribution in which > > all companies effectively have a single channel each. That is utterly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > owning 100 channels would be fine. Or even if some owned 101 while > others owned 50 while still others owned 61. That's not much different from what you were saying. A distribution of 100000 channels among 100 staions where most of them have between 50 and 150 is extraordinary flat. It's like expecting most animals to be between a foot and two feet long. > You don't use ebay much do you? If you did, you'd be aware that many > sellers use ebay as an alternate store front to their game stores, book [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > clearly have more sophisticated supply mechanisms than "what can I find > in my basement?". Still a somewhat unusually restrictive situation. I assume there are rules or practical effects in place whereby a large store can't auction thousands of identical items simultaneously. > And ebay isn't an isolated phenomena like you seem to think. I can buy a > new motherboard from any of at least 50 independant computer shops [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Monster" brand to equivalent but 1/4 the cost, to dirt cheap and made > like sh.t and everything in between... Well, there are lots of online games too. I've only played online strategy games before, but WOW is tempting to me as it seems like a game that has a good chunk of solo content, i.e. one can dip in and out of the 'social interaction'. So, the market has recently brought around a game that I think I might like. The system works! The bottom line is that a market does not become 'unfree' just because economies of scale lead to concentration. It probably becomes more imperfect to some degree, given that a perfect ideal market has infinitely many buyers and sellers. - Gerry Quinn > > > That's not what you described. You described a distribution in which > > > all companies effectively have a single channel each. That is utterly [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > rules or practical effects in place whereby a large store can't auction > thousands of identical items simultaneously. No rules. Many sellers will auction dozens or more identical items at once. The primary reason a store wouldn't want to auction thousands of identical items simultaneously is that the flood of over supply would drive the price down. > > And ebay isn't an isolated phenomena like you seem to think. I can buy a > > new motherboard from any of at least 50 independant computer shops [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well, there are lots of online games too. Online games are simply not as substitutable. Any of dozens of motherboards will host my components successfully, any of dozens of stereo interconnects will hook my stereo together. If all my friends are playing everquest, then buying WoW because its cheaper and I think the customer service is better will not let me play with my friends. Its not like buying a honda instead of a toyota. > I've only played online > strategy games before, but WOW is tempting to me as it seems like a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > imperfect to some degree, given that a perfect ideal market has > infinitely many buyers and sellers. "to some degree"? That would be a considerable understatement, imo. >No rules. Many sellers will auction dozens or more identical items at >once. Actually, you're incorrect. eBay only permits a seller to have 10 identical auctions at a time. Obviously, they're not going to worry about someone who lists 11 or 12 auctions (just like you're not going to get thrown out of the '10 items or less line' at the grocery store for having 11 items), but if someone has 100 identical auctions and someone else complains (eBay always relies on its customers to police auctions. They're pretty lazy), eBay WILL remove the extras. http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/listing-duplicate.html > >No rules. Many sellers will auction dozens or more identical items at > >once. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/listing-duplicate.html Well, you've done half your homework =) While your cite is technically correct, the reality is that the policy does not actually restrict the sales of multiple identical items. It merely restricts your ability to create pages and pages of auction spam. Ebay has an approved "multiple listing" auction type specficically to allow you to sell as many identical items as you like in a single auction. http://pages.ebay.com/help/sell/multiple.html /excerpt: "Online Auction-type listing: List identical multiple items together in an online auction. The winning bid in a multiple item listing is based on the highest bid per item. Example: Suppose you have 50 hammers, all the same, that you'd like to sell for at least $5.99 each. You would list them as a quantity of 50, and a starting price of $5.99. /end excerpt. > > Well, there are lots of online games too. > Online games are simply not as substitutable. True. So markets will be less ideal. But so will any other conceivable alternative way of matching producers and consumers. > > The bottom line is that a market does not become 'unfree' just because > > economies of scale lead to concentration. It probably becomes more > > imperfect to some degree, given that a perfect ideal market has > > infinitely many buyers and sellers. > "to some degree"? That would be a considerable understatement, imo. It would be an unquantified statement, much like yours! - Gerry Quinn > > "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You're projecting what you would do, and using it to determine that the > other guy is greedy... Projecting what I would do? Certainly not. Projecting what a company would do given a lack of morals and a lust for livre? Absolutely. > > If people don't object early, then the danger is that they won't have a > > choice later, at least for those games run by greedy multinational [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > choice you don't seem prepared to give them. Magic The Gathering was a > success, despite having the features you criticise. And yet is remains isolated. The number of games where money doesn't buy you an advantage in one corner, and "Magic: The Gambling" in the other. I expect chess and go will outlast the pyramids. I don't see Magic in the kiddies hands much now, do you? > And if people want and are prepared to pay games where use of real-world > money is not allowed, why wouldn't greedy corporations provide them as > an alternative? > > - Gerry Quinn In much the same way as horse races are rigged, because people are prepared to pay money to corrupt the rules of the game... I have no problems with a game where up front is made clear that money will buy you victory. What I see instead is the gradual introduction by stealth of this, with official denials and the promises that a poor person can still compete despite the odds. It stinks, most people don't want it, and it is not inevitable. > "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message > > > If people don't object early, then the danger is that they won't have a > > > choice later, at least for those games run by greedy multinational [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > chess and go will outlast the pyramids. I don't see Magic in the kiddies > hands much now, do you? Which supports my point, not yours. MtG was highly influential, and the world of games would be poorer without it and the many gams influenced by it, including games with non-collectable cards. People who wanted to play other card games (with or without money) just carried right on, without trying to destroy MtG before it even got started. > > And if people want and are prepared to pay games where use of real-world > > money is not allowed, why wouldn't greedy corporations provide them as > > an alternative? > In much the same way as horse races are rigged, because people are prepared > to pay money to corrupt the rules of the game... Irrelevant here - we are talking about games in which the rules permit payment. > I have no problems with a game where up front is made clear that money will > buy you victory. What I see instead is the gradual introduction by stealth > of this, with official denials and the promises that a poor person can still > compete despite the odds. But what you see is in your head, not in the real world. And nobody is going to be chained to their computer and forced to play a particular game. > It stinks, most people don't want it, and it is not inevitable. Whether it stinks is a matter of opinion. Whether most people don't want it will be decided in the marketplace. And the bit about whether it is inevitable is, presumably, just a rallying call to panic half-wits into 'acting now, before They take control of your computer'. - Gerry Quinn > > "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > play other card games (with or without money) just carried right on, > without trying to destroy MtG before it even got started. How many games did it influence? How many games are there? Did it influence one percent of new games? One hundredth of a percent? An immeasurably small value, perhaps? How does it rate being highly influential? I go to game shops all the time. I see zero effect. And I don't see kids playing it, and my nieces and nephews aren't playing it or a clone of it. At it's peak it had a percentage of the market but nowhere near the effect roleplaying games had for example. And at least it wasn't changing the rules as it went to favour richer players. ople want and are prepared to pay games where use of real-world > > > money is not allowed, why wouldn't greedy corporations provide them as > > > an alternative? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Irrelevant here - we are talking about games in which the rules permit > payment. We are talking about games which traditionally don't, which currently ban people who attempt payment. We are talking about changing MMOGs so that rich people get a sweeter ride than poor people, instead of having a level playing field. The game in question, in the original post, is a MMOG run by a company that is not currently saying payment is permitted. The point raised by the original poster was how would people feel if the MS MMOG has the same distortion that they are talking about introducing in a car racing game; i.e. the car racer who coughs up extra gets a faster car than the other guy. <snip> > And nobody is going to be chained to their computer and forced to play a > particular game. Certainly, no-one is forced to play everquest, yet people have loyalty to their characters, and will remain in a game even when they have stopped feeling it is "fun". People will even commit violence over what happens in a game, as happened recently. In this case, if people start a MMOG and get attached to their characters, and then they find they cannot progress at the same rate as others, then a lot will try anyway, even as the fun factor fades and it becomes just another joyless addiction. Recently serverwide announcements were made when certain goals within the game were met. Some people did the in game equivalent of climbing mount everest. They'll go down in the game version of history. At the moment i can feel pretty confident they earned their fame, such as it is. Should these changes be brought in, no-one will ever now if a guild defeated some god because it was good, or just loaded. And people in countries with less wealth than the US will have to either abandon the characters they might have worked on for ten hours a day for years, or face permanent second class status. <snip> > And the bit about whether > it is inevitable is, presumably, just a rallying call to panic half-wits > into 'acting now, before They take control of your computer'. Ok, I realise you might have forgotten your medication, but that's not what I said, intended, implied, suggested, deduced or inferred. What you just brought up is a straw man argument, I don't have any opinion on this mysterious "Them" (giant ants perhaps?) controlling computers. On the other hand what I do care about is the subject of this discussion: that games like Vanguard might introduce the same privileged game for the wealthy that Microsoft has proposed to do with other games, and that once they do that, other MMOGs like EQ might do so too. I think if we the players communicate to the companies that we don't want this (and people have already done this with SOE and it has stated it won't), then they won't introduce it by stealth. I don't think enough people will play in a MMOG to make it viable if they know that they are just there to be the peasants. That's what real life is for. > > > chess and go will outlast the pyramids. I don't see Magic in the kiddies > > > hands much now, do you? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > one percent of new games? One hundredth of a percent? An immeasurably small > value, perhaps? Two games I play a lot, Astral Tournament and the sequel Astral Masters, are clearly influenced by MtG. (And neither use physical collectable cards.) I don't think percentages matter much here, though I would guess the value is between 0.01% and 1%. > How does it rate being highly influential? I go to game shops all the time. > I see zero effect. And I don't see kids playing it, and my nieces and > nephews aren't playing it or a clone of it. At it's peak it had a percentage > of the market but nowhere near the effect roleplaying games had for example. You're comparing a single game to "role-playing games" in general? > And at least it wasn't changing the rules as it went to favour richer > players. Neither is anyone else. > > > In much the same way as horse races are rigged, because people are > prepared [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > We are talking about games which traditionally don't, which currently ban > people who attempt payment. No we aren't. We are talking about a new game that does, or might. > We are talking about changing MMOGs so that rich > people get a sweeter ride than poor people, instead of having a level [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > game; i.e. the car racer who coughs up extra gets a faster car than the > other guy. I don't know, but if they don't like it, they should try another game. > > And nobody is going to be chained to their computer and forced to play a > > particular game. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > have worked on for ten hours a day for years, or face permanent second class > status. Then let them invent their own games, and have the best of both worlds - money and the games they want to play. In their own languages, even. > I don't think enough people will play in a MMOG to make it viable if they > know that they are just there to be the peasants. That's what real life is > for. I don't think so either. So if somebody wants to make such a game, why not let them try? Instead of making rabid accusations against a company that has not even done what you accuse them of wanting to do. - Gerry Quinn > > > > chess and go will outlast the pyramids. I don't see Magic in the kiddies > > > > hands much now, do you? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You're comparing a single game to "role-playing games" in general? Yep. D&D, a single game, basically launched RPGs, and CRPGs, which launched MMOGs. MTG launched... possibly 2 games. I think the percentages matter because I think 0.01 % is very optomistic. > > And at least it wasn't changing the rules as it went to favour richer > > players. > > Neither is anyone else. The example given was that a racing car driver would be given a faster car |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message