"Virtual sales provide aid to poorer nations" the BBC writes...

aeoleon

To start I quote the begining of the news piece:

 

"The global market for such virtual game goods is worth at least $3bn (£1.8bn) the World Bank study estimates.

About 75% of that comes from so-called "gold farmers" who stockpile game currencies to sell on later.

Encouraging these in-game services could aid development in many poorer countries, said the report."

 

I mean, where do we stand in terms of what is fair really?

I was reading the bit of news and got me thinking that maybe I was being unfair about gold sellers, I always get annoyed by them, but soon the thought left my mind and I was a bit angry.

It's their fault that our preferred games are riddled with sellers and bots and chinese, taiwanese, whatevernese trying to push part of that £1.8bn to their side of the borders. That is an awefull lot of money and we will only see this figure increase with bits of news like this.

I wonder why they put the "awwww-poor-them" side of the story like that, knowing that big studios are trying to fight them off...

...or are they?

Aelfinn

I find them annoying as well, but cannot ultimately complain. They would not exist if players were not throwing away that 3 billion $

Its a bit like complaining about ants on the picnic basket when you park the thing 2 feet from the nest.