Originally posted by Dekoth Really? thats interesting. I would dearly love for you to explain to us that experience it every day first hand how it really works. I am more then willing to give credance to your opinion, however I want to see something of merit that engages me in an intelligent read of why we are wrong and the books are right.
Yeah you are right. All those economists with degrees and years of study who have even published books on economics don't know what the hell they are talking about. It seems much more likely that Ianubisi is a much more likely expert on the issue.
There's a lively debate over at terranova today -- these are people who have published works on MMOs (richard bartle the author of "designing virtual worlds" and the original programmer of MUD 1. Raph Koster, Ted Castranova Et al) and a number of them teach at universities including topics on virtual economies:
Here's just one post from that growing discussion:
Dmitri Williams Excellent insights, Julian, but I think that maybe I wasn't clear about something. When I said social contract, I didn't mean that each player needs to endure the grind (that, after all, is a product of bad game mechanics or design). I was referring to the sense of fun and meritocracy that one gets from participating with others as equals. I love the part in JC Herz's "Joystick Nation" where she's talking about meritocracy in early social arcade gaming: "It didn't matter what you drove to the arcade. If you sucked at Asteroids, you just sucked." That, for her, was the draw of the arcade. It was a melting pot of class, race and age made possible by the fact that you couldn't buy your way in. That's what I'm getting at when I say "social contract," so maybe I ought to come up with a better term. Social parity? The "cool social stuff you get when everyone is equal and it's all about talent and effort." Yeah, that thing.
I do appreciate the idea that different folks play for different reasons and styles and that there are PvPers and PvErs, crafters, etc., but that's sidestepping the point in part because there will still be subsets within those groups that will face this problem.
A personal anecdote popped into my head when I was thinking about this today: When I was an undergrad I drove from LA out to Prescott, Arizona to visit a buddy going to school out there, and to go and try paintball with him. He'd been raving about it. So I get to the game site and it's about 40 guys, 20 of whom were Vietnam vets. My buddy and I rented paintball guns, but we quickly noticed that a good chunk of the others had brought their own. Ours were single-shot pump-driven models and these fellows had automatics. Needless to say, we were pummeled. Painfully (literally). I didn't mind the fact that 20 of them were better hunters, stalkers and shots than me. I was fine to learn the ropes. I minded paying the same entrance fee and getting my ass bruised by a stream of bullets from automatic guns while I cowered with a pea shooter.
Is this situation analogous? I mean we could say that the market will correct the situation since I didn't want to go back to that paintball site. The next time I went to play, I went to an indoor arena that had standardized gear. It was a lot more fun. But a friend (relatively wealthy) of mine went ought and bought an automatic so that he could go to the big outdoor games which all permitted the automatics. I didn't join him because I couldn't afford that kind of gun. And eventually I dropped the hobby.
As I was thinking about this case as an analogy, I remembered that a lot of discussion on TN revolves around expanding the player base. And then I thought, hmm, this ain't gonna help.
Would you like me to translate for you?
The point here being that by allowing players (in this case paintball but could just as easily be an MMO) to use their wealth to purchase better equipment within the game it no longer is based on the person with the best strategy, skill, or time and instead rewards the person with the most money. Period.
Instead of selling the +5 cudgel of blunt force trauma for $50, why not selling is for say $10 so more players could enjoy it? Wouldn't this be a nice thing for SOE to do for its players? Sure. Well, why not lower the price further to say $1 so even more people could enjoy it? Hell -- since you don't think the laws of economics apply to MMOs, let's just give them away for free? Sounds good doesn't it? The problem is that it ruins the game. There's no longer any reason whatsoever to actually play the game to gain abilities or items or to practice to build skill.
This same problem with allow a player (or a team) to simply buy their way to the top plagues other games/sports as well -- much like the paintball example above. Why are there salaray caps in major league sports? If there weren't it would boil down to the owner with the most cash buying the winning team.
There are primarily three things that enable players to advance in games: skill, time, and money. Most FPSes are totally skill based. It's a very narrow skillset of hand eye coordination, but it's still skill based. A newbie can kick ass just as much as a seasoned veteran. Thus it's not a time based system. Also, you cannot buy any uber "rocket launchers of doom" and thus it's not based on money either.
Traditionally, MMOs have been purely time based affairs. Most have automated combat, and don't have any skill/strategy components. The players who are most powerful or who have the best items are the ones who have been in the virtual world the longest.
By SOE legitimizing the buying/selling of ingame content they add a new avenue to advance within an MMO: money. It no longer becomes who's got the most skills or who has spent the most time in the virtual world, but soley about who has the most money.
One of the best things about games is that it levels the playing field. It doesn't matter if you are a doctor or a 16-year-old teenager, when you meet on the battlefield all things are equal. SOE's move seeks to undermine that by allowing the doctor -- and more importantly his 6 figure salary -- to triumph over the teen with a $20-a-week allowance. I for one, don't like this trend.
But hey since you guys think it's a great idea, you better go buy some sony stock so you can get rich too. Don't worry about us who actually want a game, we'll go elsewhere.
PD
Your going to have to do better then this, Im going to be very brief and summerize this thing you quoted.
You have a guy, Someone who I will presume is in their mid 30's based off his writing style, and is your average corporate joe, possibly self employed. Either way standard middle class, not rich, but certaintly not poor, living a fairly comfortable life from a financial perspective. He begin's to speak of paintball, and his first experience with the rental equipment vs the other guys automatic guns, in todays language he got Owned. So he begin's to whine about it, while he almost is respectable and admits there is a learning curve, he unfortunatlly negates any point he may have had by whining about their equipment. Now I happen to play paintball, and I do not buy my own equipment. For as often as i play, I find it an unnecessary expense, although I could afford to If i truly wanted. I find myself at Zero disadvantage on the field against those with suppossedly superior weapons, My gun shoots just as far. So they can shoot a stream of paint..doesnt matter if they do not have skill they are not going to hit me. Personally if it takes me more then about 3 shots to hit someone its unusual. So what this guy says to me, because I do play is that frankly he Sucks and no amount of "Uber" Gear can negate the fact that someone simply sucks. He then goes on to try and tie in loosly to mmorpg gaming and players getting advantages..I might add it was a very very vague tie in at best, also it had absolutly nothing to do with the econ we were discussing.
Furthermore, You are making assumptions that lend to belief you seem to think these items in the economic model we are discussing are going to be appearing out of thin air. What part of SoE is not Selling items, but is simply acting as a broker did you fail to understand? The act of Selling items is already happening on all servers, on ALL games. All SoE is looking to do here is to help control the flow of items and coin by allowing it, through their system. Of course its reasonable to expect them to charge for the service it takes time, man power and software to do so. People buying equipment off Player auctions and such gives no tangible advantage. You see another factor you are failing to realize here is guild structure and how they tie into the sociopolitical spectrum of mmorpgs and how they influence the econ as far as the high end stuff goes. It really does not matter how good someone's gear is, In the end the "Uber" mobs are controlled by the top tier guilds. And All of us have systems in place that if someone wants in the guild they have to prove the kind of player they are. Gear or no gear, if the player is inexperienced and Sucks, as the guy in the example you gave did at paintball. Then it does not matter how much they spent, they are now an overtwinked skilless n00b with no chance at buying their way into the high end game. So they have the best gear available outside top guilds...Does not help them a bit if all they can do is kill experience mobs, because the top guilds reject them.
Now again you addressed the point on those who have studied economics, Good for them here I will go ahead and clue you in on something in the business world. Degree's in the Business world Mean positively Jack. If you do not have the Experience to do the job, the guy with no degree and the working experience is going to get the job over you. I run into this all the time when I am hiring employees. I frankly could care less if you come to me with 50 degree's, unless you can show me you understand that how business in the real world works vs the hypothetical theories in a book, I do not care about your degree's. This is my point on the MMORPG econ, I have 10 years active working experience with them, I have seen how it works with Tons of variables, I have used each system to play the game how I prefer. Each mmog Econ is distinctly different, however There is a competely different ruleset governing how they work. I am afraid I have yet to see a single book that came even close to comprehending how they work. Most of these guys are speaking from years of economic's study, and if I was looking for stock market advise they would have my undivided attention. However they are only speaking on theory and principle when it comes to mmog's because few if any of them have any real experience playing these game's, so you are most correct when you assume that my stance is at this point their opinion is null and void. Sorry there is simply a black and white difference between Theory and Fact, Now find me one of these guys who has working experience and what he has to say actually lines up with how a MMOG econ really works, you have my interest.
But dont post another article like that, that Only vaguely references mmogs and expect me to buy into it. In case you have not figured it out yet, I am far from simple minded so I am not going to buy into senseless crap like that.
I think that the final word here is that out of game sales are here to stay, and stay they will. Whether or not you choose to participate, is up to you.
What SOE is doing is something the the creators of second life have been doing for years. They are profiting off of in-game data. Actually, if you look at it very rougly, they have been doing all along by charging customers to play a virtual character. This, to me, is just another way to profit off of us. Face it people, SOE and all the other companies dont give a s**t about gameplay or rolepaying... they care about making an extra buck. Who can blame 'em?
"By SOE legitimizing the buying/selling of ingame content they add a new avenue to advance within an MMO: money. It no longer becomes who's got the most skills or who has spent the most time in the virtual world, but soley about who has the most money."
ROFL!!!
NEW avenue to advance? I guess if you ignore the fact that YOU CAN ALREADY BUY LEVEL 50s ON ALMOST EVERY SERVER, and that buying gear alone DOES NOT HELP YOU FINISH GROUP/GUILD RAIDS TO ENTER NEW ZONES, and if you ignore the fact that gear does not equal ability in game, errr, I guess if you ignore all of those things, then you might say somethign like the quote above. But anyone who knows the game at all knows that assessment is WAY OFF.
It can never solely be about who has the most money because you still have to spend time in the game to learn how to play it. If you want to get to raid level, you also have to spend time in game wooing high end guilds to get accepted into them, and they will most definitely require a certain amount of raid time, if not consistent presence several days per week. Anyone can buy a lvl 50 whatever, that doesn't mean you have anything to DO with it. ROFL.
And quite frankly, all this doomsaying about what will happen is complete BS, since YOU CAN ALREADY DO EVERYTHING THEY ARE GOING TO HELP YOU DO. It's just that now you won't have to risk getting a purchased character/account ripped back when the original owner calls in to support to reclaim it, and you won't risk not getting items you pay for because you pay for them first and then pick them up later in game.
Just because you guys ignore it and don't participate does not mean it doesn't ALREADY affect your game, so don't come out now saying it will ruin the whole game when it ALREADY HAPPENS and doesn't ruin anything that hasn't already been "ruined" for 5+ years.
Habit is not to be flung out the window by any man, but coaxed down the stairs one step at a time. - Mark Twain
I'm not envious, nor am i worried about it unbalancing the game. BTW just because you buy an online item or credit doesnt mean you must suck. Seems thats the defacto statement thats being made. I'm also fairly sure very competant people have also bought stuff online as well and yes many do suck and thats the only way they can play.
I View it as cheating, its like someone taking steroids and using a short cut to beat everyone else's hard work. But real life being what it is, hardly a surprise. They should let people know who these cheaters er ummm... participants of this trend... are. Maybe put a big l33t d3wd tag above their heads.
Originally posted by Scorpes They should let people know who these cheaters er ummm... participants of this trend... are. Maybe put a big l33t d3wd tag above their heads.
What about people that get a complete set of high-end gear from their friends or guilds? Would you call them cheaters as well?
Originally posted by Scorpes They should let people know who these cheaters er ummm... participants of this trend... are. Maybe put a big l33t d3wd tag above their heads.
What about people that get a complete set of high-end gear from their friends or guilds? Would you call them cheaters as well?
You know I have now participated in at least 15 of these threads, and heard a few hundred opinions on the subject and I have come to the conclusion you can sum up the only argument they made 99% of the posts in 2 words. IT's Unfair.
This also reminds me of a number of years back when EQ was really starting to take off a similiar debate with the same results. Back then the issue was not the selling of items, but that of higher level char's "Twinking" their low level alts. Its amusing the arguments are Exactlly the same, you have your camp of cheater screamers, you have your camp of Its Immoral screamers, and of course the..Its not Fair ones as well. Back then people ranted and raved on the forums that it simply was not fair for their "legit" warrior to have to compete against a "twink" the whole Groups would tank a twink over a legit because of faster leveling..etc etc.
Anyhow I simply find the argument ironic, and frighteningly familiar..a few minor difference's but in the end..the same.
SOE isn't doing anything new. SOE isn't giving players anything they didn't already have access to.
All SOE is doing is making sure nobody gets burned in the process.
Used to be you'd take your wallet into your own hands when buying items/cash/characters off Ebay or whatever. I can't count the number of times, as a Guide in EQ1, that we'd hear some sob story about how some rube bought a character from another player and they "hacked" the account back.
We'd be like: Did you get his CD Key from him?
Player: "no" Us: "sorry too bad then, you should be talking to customer support on the phone but we can tell you they won't do anything since you can't prove ownership. You have to have th original CD Key for the account". Player: "But that's not fair!?!"
Us: (laughing behind our keyboard) "Neither is buying a level 50 character"
Frankly I am looking forward to seeing how this turns out. It *could* be a nightmare waiting to happen or it could change nothing except giving players a safer avenue to buy things. Personally I think that if nothing major changes from what happens already (hey Ebay and IGE and other sites have allowed this crap for years) then I'm all for it because it means people won't get ripped off anymore.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
What about people that get a complete set of high-end gear from their friends or guilds? Would you call them cheaters as well?
No because thats part of the game mechanics. Using money to buy virtual stuff is using an outside influence that is NOT available to all. Everyone has the chance to meet people or join a guild and have things given to them.
Originally posted by Scorpes No because thats part of the game mechanics. Using money to buy virtual stuff is using an outside influence that is NOT available to all. Everyone has the chance to meet people or join a guild and have things given to them.
Incorrect. Making friends with a good guild is exponentially more difficult than earning $10 to buy a good armor set.
Originally posted by Scorpes All SOE is doing is making sure nobody gets burned in the process. Yeah everyone believes thats the real reason for it.....
I went to a game's industry dinner/panel last night here in the seattle area (bellevue actually). There were the usual mix of industry execs, lawyers, CPAs, VCs, etc. It just happend that a person from SOE (a senior programmer) was at my table. This was a guy who has worked on MMOs and is currently part of the SOE:seattle game studio which is working on their next MMO. Someone asked him what he thought of SOE's move into the ingame content for cash trade. I followed up by asking why SOE made this move. His response:
"They felt they were leaving a lot of money on the table."
It didn't have anything to do with protecting customers from fraud or reducing calls to support staff or enhancing the user's experience in the game or fun. It was all about how much extra money they could make. There are plenty of you who will complain that that's their job as a business to make money and i couldn't agree more. It's all in how you go about making money that's important for long term success. Everytime there's an opinion poll on what players think about trading ingame items for cash they are overwhelmingly against it. If SOE was really trying to keep the masses happy then they would not be legitimizing this practice by becoming the middleman. A majority of players do not want this. It's being done for one reason: money. In the long run it does nothing but hurt the economy and spirit of the game.
This type of short-term thinking plagues american business. Somehow the marketing and finance people seem to think consumers are stupid and will put up with any money making scheme businesses invent to part consumers with their cash. In the short run they will, in the long run they will rebel and punish companies for it.
It reminds me of how the US auto industry abused consumers for years. In the early 70s american cars dominated the market in the US. The Japanese had almost 0% marketshare. Unlike the US manufacturers who purposely built cars that would breakdown prematurely, the japanese designed cars that would last. By the late 80s American car makers would quickly losing ground to japanese competitors because american cars were seen as poorly built compared to their japanese counterparts. I remember seeing an interview with Lee Iacocca, then head of Chrysler Corp. who was lamenting (he was blaming american consumers) about americans buying japanese cars instead of american ones. He pointed to a joint project between dodge and mitsubishi corp. They developed a car that was branded under both names: the dodge stealth and the mitsubishi 3000. They were the same car and they were built in the same factory. The only difference was the name. Iacocca couldn't understand why the mitsubishis outsold the dodges 3 to 1.
What Lee Iacocca couldn't figure out from his arrogant amercian businessman point of view was that amercian consumers were sick and tired of getting the shaft from US automakers and were instead buying cars from the japanese who had a proven their quality. While the US automakers were making cars that didn't last -- so consumers would buy replacement cars more often -- the japanese took a much longer-term outlook of their customers. The japanese reasoned that if they built quality products that they would be rewarded in the long term. This was in direct contrast to the americans who couldn't see past the end of their noses.
This is very similar to the situation here: sure SOE will derive additional revenue from making this move. What they fail to recognize is the long-term damage they are doing to their game and their franchise. Consumers do not easily forget such behavior.
Before someone tries to say that SOE is japanese, it's not. SOE is owned by Sony Corporation of America. We've got good 'ol american businessmen -- and worse yet the american way of business -- running our version of sony.
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
Originally posted by pinkdaisy It reminds me of how the US auto industry abused consumers for years. In the early 70s american cars dominated the market in the US. The Japanese had almost 0% marketshare. Unlike the US manufacturers who purposely built cars that would breakdown prematurely, the japanese designed cars that would last. By the late 80s American car makers would quickly losing ground to japanese competitors because american cars were seen as poorly built compared to their japanese counterparts. I remember seeing an interview with Lee Iacocca, then head of Chrysler Corp. who was lamenting (he was blaming american consumers) about americans buying japanese cars instead of american ones. He pointed to a joint project between dodge and mitsubishi corp. They developed a car that was branded under both names: the dodge stealth and the mitsubishi 3000. They were the same car and they were built in the same factory. The only difference was the name. Iacocca couldn't understand why the mitsubishis outsold the dodges 3 to 1.What Lee Iacocca couldn't figure out from his arrogant amercian businessman point of view was that amercian consumers were sick and tired of getting the shaft from US automakers and were instead buying cars from the japanese who had a proven their quality. While the US automakers were making cars that didn't last -- so consumers would buy replacement cars more often -- the japanese took a much longer-term outlook of their customers. The japanese reasoned that if they built quality products that they would be rewarded in the long term. This was in direct contrast to the americans who couldn't see past the end of their noses.
The Japanese automakers leveraged exceptional levels of effeciency and technical skill in creating a vehicle that was dramatically less expensive than the average american vehicle, and more importantly they correctly divined the need to have better feul effeciency at the time that OPEC created an oil embargo and a massive feul crisis worldwide.
The truth of the quality of the vehicles is that the american car (made of steel) was far more sturdy and reliable than the fiberglass-framed economy cars of the Japanese, but American consumers saw the price point and feul savings and jumped on board en masse. The cars were worse by quality (dramatically so in many cases) but represented a greater long-term savings. It was classic capitalist innovation and opportunism that gave the Japanese automakers a huge edge.
If you wish to fault American lack of foresight to see this coming you are certainly welcome to do so...and if you call that "arrogance" then have at it. But the truth quite simply is that the American automaker was beaten by a stronger business model. Your conclusion of the quality of Japanese product is ridiculously incorrect.
Originally posted by pinkdaisy This is very similar to the situation here: sure SOE will derive additional revenue from making this move. What they fail to recognize is the long-term damage they are doing to their game and their franchise. Consumers do not easily forget such behavior.
Once again the argument is thrust forward: "this will damage the game."
How will it damage the game? Your previous arguments (inflationary economies) has been resoundly trounced, as it should be. Would you like to ferret out another cockeyed theory to suggest that this will happen?
Incorrect. Making friends with a good guild is exponentially more difficult than earning $10 to buy a good armor set.
Hardly incorrect, you are just being short sightedand looking at things at its most simplistic. You assume alot in your argument.
#1 that people only spend 10 dollars, many people spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Next time you play Chess, tell someone since you bought 4 extra Queens and 2 extra knights that you should play with them. Games have rules, rules are meant as a balancing factor.
#2 that everyone has access to spend an additional 10dollars or far more. Alot of people are probably on fixed incomes. From being to young to work or not having a job, being in school, job not paying enough and to many bills, being disabled, etc.
The Japanese automakers leveraged exceptional levels of effeciency and technical skill in creating a vehicle that was dramatically less expensive than the average american vehicle, and more importantly they correctly divined the need to have better feul effeciency at the time that OPEC created an oil embargo and a massive feul crisis worldwide.
Here's the layman's translation: they made better cars. During the oil crisis in the early 70's people looked for more fuel efficient cars. As the 70s wore on and especially into the 1980s oil prices (and subsequently gas prices) dropped, yet the japanese marketshare continued to climb. Your OPEC argument doesn't support this. Try again.
The truth of the quality of the vehicles is that the american car (made of steel) was far more sturdy and reliable than the fiberglass-framed economy cars of the Japanese...
Umm, this statement shows your ignorance. Please give me the name of a single japanese car that was made of fiberglass? They weren't. They were built of steel just like the american cars. True enough they usually used thinner gauge steel, and were also smaller cars on average, but they were still made of steel. I do know of one production car made of fiberglass: the chevrolet corvette. According to your logic, since the corvette is made of firberglass it must be inferior to other amercian made cars. Get a clue and get your facts straight.
If you wish to fault American lack of foresight to see this coming you are certainly welcome to do so...and if you call that "arrogance" then have at it. But the truth quite simply is that the American automaker was beaten by a stronger business model. Your conclusion of the quality of Japanese product is ridiculously incorrect.
Once again the argument is thrust forward: "this will damage the game." How will it damage the game? Your previous arguments (inflationary economies) has been resoundly trounced, as it should be. Would you like to ferret out another cockeyed theory to suggest that this will happen?
Everything you've said there is conjecture. Your assertions are baseless and thus not worth a rebuttal.
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
You are absolutely correct to point out that Japanese vehicles were not created with fiberglass frames. Touche. I retract that statement.
I do, however, stand firmly behind my analysis of the Japanese domination of the auto industry in the late 70s and early 80s. The history books are pretty clear about how that happened. As for the continuance of domination into the post-OPEC crisis, that was primarily momentum which is typical of any industry.
Regardless, this has no direct merit to the argument of virtual item resale and its impact to the MMOG genre.
Originally posted by pinkdaisy Once again the argument is thrust forward: "this will damage the game." How will it damage the game? Your previous arguments (inflationary economies) has been resoundly trounced, as it should be. Would you like to ferret out another cockeyed theory to suggest that this will happen? Everything you've said there is conjecture. Your assertions are baseless and thus not worth a rebuttal.
You are entirely skirting the prime question: how does virtual item resale hurt the game? Do you have another argument besides inflation to support this meritless claim? Your own emotions are not a base by which to support so broad a statement.
Originally posted by Scorpes Next time you play Chess, tell someone since you bought 4 extra Queens and 2 extra knights that you should play with them. Games have rules, rules are meant as a balancing factor.
What a ridiculous argument. Next time you play chess, as your friend to give you another queen. Since it cannot happen, the analogy made by purchasing it is equally ridiculous.
Originally posted by Scorpes #2 that everyone has access to spend an additional 10dollars or far more. Alot of people are probably on fixed incomes. From being to young to work or not having a job, being in school, job not paying enough and to many bills, being disabled, etc.
This is true, though most people can earn a few dollars with even a marginal effort. But far more valid and to the point are those with poor social skills (even antisocial skills) or those who simply desire to "go it alone" These players are handicapped by not being able to beg off of others that which they could obtain through a few dollars expenditure.
Again, it is a matter of choice. They are not compelled to engage in this behavior, but they may choose to do so if they wish it. For some, money is easier to come by than friendship...for others, the reverse is true. Either way it's twinking one's own character through means not obtained directly through one's own actions...you're not looting that which you either buy or are gifted. You may find one distasteful, but they are nearly identical in effect and practice.
The Japanese automakers leveraged exceptional levels of effeciency and technical skill in creating a vehicle that was dramatically less expensive than the average american vehicle, and more importantly they correctly divined the need to have better feul effeciency at the time that OPEC created an oil embargo and a massive feul crisis worldwide.
Where do you come up with this stuff, Japanese cars were made to be more fuel efficient long before all that becaue Japan has NO oil! They strictly import it and they realized fuel economy was extremely important to reduce their reliance on foreign oil. They didnt go, "man, we need to stop making these gas guzzlers just to compete in the american market".
The truth of the quality of the vehicles is that the american car (made of steel) was far more sturdy and reliable than the fiberglass-framed economy cars of the Japanese, but American consumers saw the price point and feul savings and jumped on board en masse. The cars were worse by quality (dramatically so in many cases) but represented a greater long-term savings. It was classic capitalist innovation and opportunism that gave the Japanese automakers a huge edge.
Since when does steel built cars mean reliability? Safety sure, but to make the argument that if a car has a steel frame its more reliable is bordering on idiocy. Are you claiming their engines and transmissions were also built out of fiberglass? And as for these all fiberglass japanese cars, name them since clearly your stating that is the "standard" japanese import at the time.
As for damaging the game, if your talking about the health overall of a game, That remains to be seen the level of damage to the game. Often with these online buying schemes, its a classic pyramid, those who start early gain the biggest reward and those who stick to the game longest, losses everything they've invested. The one way it definently damages the game is when people know they cant compete with people who are buying their way to the top and quit. Who wants to play a game full of cheaters who always win, hardly a winning formula for success.
Originally posted by Scorpes As for damaging the game, if your talking about the health overall of a game, That remains to be seen the level of damage to the game. Often with these online buying schemes, its a classic pyramid, those who start early gain the biggest reward and those who stick to the game longest, losses everything they've invested.
The same is true of any pioneer in an online game economy. Those that began leveling early and harvesting early have an edge that they can continue to leverage against anyone. With virtual item resale there is simply one more way to compete.
Originally posted by Scorpes The one way it definently damages the game is when people know they cant compete with people who are buying their way to the top and quit.
I've been competing with people who have bought their EQ characters, UO gold, EVE isk and BPOs, and plenty of other schemes...and I've done quite well, as have many others. In almost all of these cases my skills as a player versus their skills were far more valuable than the list of my inventory versus their inventory.
Originally posted by Scorpes Who wants to play a game full of cheaters who always win, hardly a winning formula for success.
We've all been playing with people who have bought items with real life cash...and in my experiences I've almost never noticed their "advantage". For the most part, they were typically worse players owing to their lack of direct experience in the game. This was almost universally true in EQ, and proved to be true in most of the other games where I have encountered them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Scorpes Next time you play Chess, tell someone since you bought 4 extra Queens and 2 extra knights that you should play with them. Games have rules, rules are meant as a balancing factor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous argument. Next time you play chess, as your friend to give you another queen. Since it cannot happen, the analogy made by purchasing it is equally ridiculous.
It cannot happen? of course it cant he'd tell you to screw off, and if SOE was another player thats what they'd tell you too. The fact is since SOE is just a company looking for a profit they bend the rules to suit their bottom line and make the distastefull a reality. Hence the entire argument. Another analogy since you still dont get it. If you two people were arm wrestling and theirs a referee "SOE" and you pay SOE a fee to allow you to use steroids, wouldnt everyone just love to arm wrestle with you. This is why this trend can be damaging to the game, but if this is the norm, it will disenfranchise alot of people to the gaming market and has the possibily of depressing and retarding the online gaming industry as a whole. Seeing every single game your in the top 20 players/guilds bought their way to the top.
Because one things assured, if ALL things are equal..except one player has 300 bucks to spend on online things then that person will almost always win.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Scorpes The one way it definently damages the game is when people know they cant compete with people who are buying their way to the top and quit.
I've been competing with people who have bought their EQ characters, UO gold, EVE isk and BPOs, and plenty of other schemes...and I've done quite well, as have many others. In almost all of these cases my skills as a player versus their skills were far more valuable than the list of my inventory versus their inventory.
I dont doubt that you are an effective player, and for many they can and will work around it. But at the same time many people will get extremely discouraged by this practice. If this becomes the norm, and no not secret auctions on ebay with disclaimers 10 pages long. Something sanctioned and approved of by game companies. If SOE released SWG tomorrow, one server allowed bought items and the other insta banned, do you doubt which server most people would play? Thats why its a money issue and not SOE being this angel of mercy and customer service.
Originally posted by Scorpes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Scorpes Next time you play Chess, tell someone since you bought 4 extra Queens and 2 extra knights that you should play with them. Games have rules, rules are meant as a balancing factor. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What a ridiculous argument. Next time you play chess, as your friend to give you another queen. Since it cannot happen, the analogy made by purchasing it is equally ridiculous.It cannot happen? of course it cant he'd tell you to screw off, and if SOE was another player thats what they'd tell you too. The fact is since SOE is just a company looking for a profit they bend the rules to suit their bottom line and make the distastefull a reality. Hence the entire argument. Another analogy since you still dont get it. If you two people were arm wrestling and theirs a referee "SOE" and you pay SOE a fee to allow you to use steroids, wouldnt everyone just love to arm wrestle with you. This is why this trend can be damaging to the game, but if this is the norm, it will disenfranchise alot of people to the gaming market and has the possibily of depressing and retarding the online gaming industry as a whole. Seeing every single game your in the top 20 players/guilds bought their way to the top.
Scorpes...the rules for chess and wrestling are firm, decided, and resolute. The rules for EverQuestII are decided by SOE and are as flexible as SOE wishes them to be. They changed the rules, and thus it is now an allowable form of play. You may call it "distastefull" [sic] but it is entirely legitimate.
You can argue that you don't like it until you're satisfied you've made your point, but comparing it to paying off a referee is simply incorrect. Everyone has the same opportunity to purchase these items, limited only by their funds or their conscience. Either limitation is entirely a personal limitation, not a bending of the rules to benefit one party over another.
Originally posted by Scorpes Because one things assured, if ALL things are equal..except one player has 300 bucks to spend on online things then that person will almost always win.
And what of the player that has 20 hours a day 7 days a week to play versus the hard-working family father who has only 2 hours a day 5 days a week? How can you justify "all things [being] equal" in that case? They are not equal, they are inherently unfair and balanced toward the person with the commodity that equates to advantage.
For the longest time, the "hardcore" player has had a huge advantage in nearly every MMOG on the market. If you can spend nearly every waking hour playing you will inevitably be more advanced, have amassed more wealth, and completed more goals in a game than your average casual gamer. Is this fair? Some will argue that it is, since they are merely leveraging their own advantage as a player.
The argument is identical as regards having funds to purchase items. Some will have it and use it to their advantage, and others will not. This will create inequity, but that is the state of MMOG today in many forms. All things are not equal.
You are entirely skirting the prime question: how does virtual item resale hurt the game? Do you have another argument besides inflation to support this meritless claim? Your own emotions are not a base by which to support so broad a statement.
I have make multiple posts already on this thread. In addition i have gone to great lengths in other threads discussing this and similar topics. For convenience, i'll summarize for you here:
First some background: Hopefully we agree that MMOs are games. If you accept that then from dictionary.com we get that games are
1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement
2. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules
So games in our context provide primarily two things: etertainment and competitive activities. Not all games are the same, and not all activities within each game is the same. Some games are highly competitive in nature (such as FPSs or say RTSs in online tournaments). It's the competition and not the entertainment that brings people into those games. In other games (take there.com for example) there is very little in the way of competition and it's almost entirely entertainment value. The key is that many of the activities in games -- and especially MMOs -- have both entertainment and competitive components. Things like leveling up, finding items, PvPing, questing, et cetera. It's not an either or thing. It's many shades of grey and again many of the activities have both entertainment and competitive qualities to them.
Ok, with that said let's look at competitive gameplay features in MMOs. There are generally three ways to gain a competitive advantage in a game: time, skill, or money. In games that reward time for better abilities (EVE online is a prime example), those who have spent the most time ingame have the best abilities and generally come out on top in competitive events. Still other games reward players for skill -- this is much less common in MMOs than it is in FPSes where it doesn't matter as much how long you've been playing the game, but how good your hand eye coordination is. Again it's a skill based thing. Lastly, selling ingame content for real-world cash, this allows people to use money to gain a competitive advantage. This is especially true in games where the items (or players levels) have a much greater impact on competitive outcomes than does skill. This is where most MMOs find themselves.
One of the great things about games -- especially persistent state worlds such as MMOs -- is that they are egalitarian (Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people) in nature. The world is a cruel unfair unyeilding place. In short it sucks for many people. In a game, however, it doesn't matter if you are bill gates or a poor kid who was born a crack baby living in the middle of the ghetto. In the game you are both equals. The game has the unique ability to level the playing field so that anyone who chooses to enter can do so on an equal footing with everyone else.
That isn't to say MMOs are perfectly egalitarian; they are not. Oddly perma-death, or lack of it, does alot to unbalance the world. At any rate that goal here is to create a world where anyone -- and i do mean anyone regardless of social, economic, politicial status, ethnic background, handicap, religion, or whatever -- can enter the world as an equal. This isn't to say that they all end up as equal, but it means that they all start out as equals and it's a matter of what they do in the virtual world that determines their place, not their current situation in the real world. Again this is not a perfect system, but it is the goal.
The problem with allowing real-world cash to be traded for ingame content is that it un levels that playing field. Suddenly the person who has everything in real life, can now have everything in the virtual one as well. He isn't obtaining this from his actions in the virtual world, but from his wealth in the real one. This goes back to an earlier post where i pointed to the doctor making six-figures vs. the teenage on the $20 a week allowance. It doesn't matter how much skill, or how much time, or how much the teen has invested into the virtual world, the doctor can, simply by his real-world wealth, be better than him. This is great for the doctor, and nothing but frustration for the teen.
Still not convinced? I'll give you another example. Take sports. In particular baseball. It strives for this same egalitarian goal: Namely that what should determine who is the best should be based on who has the best skill, rather than some external factors. This isn't to say it's a perfect system, because it isn't. The first problem is that owners can simply "buy" and advantage buy offering higher salaries than other teams can afford. This removes the level playing field and replaces it with a system where the person with the most money has a distinct advantage. This flies in the face of a "fair game". No one likes this, and it's little wonder that many sports have salary caps instituted to stave off just such a problem.
Still not convinced? I'll give you another baseball example. Steriods are another way for players (at an individual level) to unbalance the playing field. Using steriods flies in the face of a fair game. It's little wonder that fans strongly object to the practice. Now many people in this thread have said that the MMO virtual/real world trade system is already broke, so SOE isn't hurting anything by becoming the middleman. I couldn't disagree more. Just like many things in MMOs being broken, the rampant use of steriods in major league baseball has also "broken" that sport. Using their logic, since it's already broken we should not only allow it to continue, but should further legitamize the practice by becoming the middleman. In baseball this would be the same as saying that steriods are already a problem and thus suggesting the league itself should start selling steriods directly to the players to get a cut of the action.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about players buying their way to victory using cash to purchase the "+5 cudgel of blunt-force trauma" or using steriods, in both cases it severly unbalances the playing field and ultimately damages the spirit of the game. Sure enough, SOE becoming a broker is good for them just like MLB selling steriods to their players would make both of them money. In the end however, it ruins the game.
This is what i mean by shortsightedness on SOEs behalf. I can't explain it any better.
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
I bet Blizzard will do the same thing. Count on it. Seems like Blizzard and SoE like to mirror each other's moves.
Also you have be a real moron to quit a game over this one issue, especially in a game like EQ2 where buying stuff not your level is a waste of money. Especially when you consider you are using real money.
Comments
Ok some of these posts sound like a bit of envy.Just dont play on those servers problem solved.
Want to ENJOY an mmo?
Dont start a guild and dont be a leader or volunteer to be coleader or captain.
Just play the damn game:)
Yeah you are right. All those economists with degrees and years of study who have even published books on economics don't know what the hell they are talking about. It seems much more likely that
Ianubisi is a much more likely expert on the issue.
There's a lively debate over at terranova today -- these are people who have published works on MMOs (richard bartle the author of "designing virtual worlds" and the original programmer of MUD 1. Raph Koster, Ted Castranova Et al) and a number of them teach at universities including topics on virtual economies:
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/04/sonybay.html#more
Here's just one post from that growing discussion:
Dmitri Williams
Excellent insights, Julian, but I think that maybe I wasn't clear about something. When I said social contract, I didn't mean that each player needs to endure the grind (that, after all, is a product of bad game mechanics or design). I was referring to the sense of fun and meritocracy that one gets from participating with others as equals. I love the part in JC Herz's "Joystick Nation" where she's talking about meritocracy in early social arcade gaming:
"It didn't matter what you drove to the arcade. If you sucked at Asteroids, you just sucked." That, for her, was the draw of the arcade. It was a melting pot of class, race and age made possible by the fact that you couldn't buy your way in. That's what I'm getting at when I say "social contract," so maybe I ought to come up with a better term. Social parity? The "cool social stuff you get when everyone is equal and it's all about talent and effort." Yeah, that thing.
I do appreciate the idea that different folks play for different reasons and styles and that there are PvPers and PvErs, crafters, etc., but that's sidestepping the point in part because there will still be subsets within those groups that will face this problem.
A personal anecdote popped into my head when I was thinking about this today:
When I was an undergrad I drove from LA out to Prescott, Arizona to visit a buddy going to school out there, and to go and try paintball with him. He'd been raving about it. So I get to the game site and it's about 40 guys, 20 of whom were Vietnam vets. My buddy and I rented paintball guns, but we quickly noticed that a good chunk of the others had brought their own. Ours were single-shot pump-driven models and these fellows had automatics. Needless to say, we were pummeled. Painfully (literally). I didn't mind the fact that 20 of them were better hunters, stalkers and shots than me. I was fine to learn the ropes. I minded paying the same entrance fee and getting my ass bruised by a stream of bullets from automatic guns while I cowered with a pea shooter.
Is this situation analogous? I mean we could say that the market will correct the situation since I didn't want to go back to that paintball site. The next time I went to play, I went to an indoor arena that had standardized gear. It was a lot more fun. But a friend (relatively wealthy) of mine went ought and bought an automatic so that he could go to the big outdoor games which all permitted the automatics. I didn't join him because I couldn't afford that kind of gun. And eventually I dropped the hobby.
As I was thinking about this case as an analogy, I remembered that a lot of discussion on TN revolves around expanding the player base. And then I thought, hmm, this ain't gonna help.
Would you like me to translate for you?
The point here being that by allowing players (in this case paintball but could just as easily be an MMO) to use their wealth to purchase better equipment within the game it no longer is based on the person with the best strategy, skill, or time and instead rewards the person with the most money. Period.
Instead of selling the +5 cudgel of blunt force trauma for $50, why not selling is for say $10 so more players could enjoy it? Wouldn't this be a nice thing for SOE to do for its players? Sure. Well, why not lower the price further to say $1 so even more people could enjoy it? Hell -- since you don't think the laws of economics apply to MMOs, let's just give them away for free? Sounds good doesn't it? The problem is that it ruins the game. There's no longer any reason whatsoever to actually play the game to gain abilities or items or to practice to build skill.
This same problem with allow a player (or a team) to simply buy their way to the top plagues other games/sports as well -- much like the paintball example above. Why are there salaray caps in major league sports? If there weren't it would boil down to the owner with the most cash buying the winning team.
There are primarily three things that enable players to advance in games: skill, time, and money. Most FPSes are totally skill based. It's a very narrow skillset of hand eye coordination, but it's still skill based. A newbie can kick ass just as much as a seasoned veteran. Thus it's not a time based system. Also, you cannot buy any uber "rocket launchers of doom" and thus it's not based on money either.
Traditionally, MMOs have been purely time based affairs. Most have automated combat, and don't have any skill/strategy components. The players who are most powerful or who have the best items are the ones who have been in the virtual world the longest.
By SOE legitimizing the buying/selling of ingame content they add a new avenue to advance within an MMO: money. It no longer becomes who's got the most skills or who has spent the most time in the virtual world, but soley about who has the most money.
One of the best things about games is that it levels the playing field. It doesn't matter if you are a doctor or a 16-year-old teenager, when you meet on the battlefield all things are equal. SOE's move seeks to undermine that by allowing the doctor -- and more importantly his 6 figure salary -- to triumph over the teen with a $20-a-week allowance. I for one, don't like this trend.
But hey since you guys think it's a great idea, you better go buy some sony stock so you can get rich too. Don't worry about us who actually want a game, we'll go elsewhere.
PD
Your going to have to do better then this, Im going to be very brief and summerize this thing you quoted.
You have a guy, Someone who I will presume is in their mid 30's based off his writing style, and is your average corporate joe, possibly self employed. Either way standard middle class, not rich, but certaintly not poor, living a fairly comfortable life from a financial perspective. He begin's to speak of paintball, and his first experience with the rental equipment vs the other guys automatic guns, in todays language he got Owned. So he begin's to whine about it, while he almost is respectable and admits there is a learning curve, he unfortunatlly negates any point he may have had by whining about their equipment. Now I happen to play paintball, and I do not buy my own equipment. For as often as i play, I find it an unnecessary expense, although I could afford to If i truly wanted. I find myself at Zero disadvantage on the field against those with suppossedly superior weapons, My gun shoots just as far. So they can shoot a stream of paint..doesnt matter if they do not have skill they are not going to hit me. Personally if it takes me more then about 3 shots to hit someone its unusual. So what this guy says to me, because I do play is that frankly he Sucks and no amount of "Uber" Gear can negate the fact that someone simply sucks. He then goes on to try and tie in loosly to mmorpg gaming and players getting advantages..I might add it was a very very vague tie in at best, also it had absolutly nothing to do with the econ we were discussing.
Furthermore, You are making assumptions that lend to belief you seem to think these items in the economic model we are discussing are going to be appearing out of thin air. What part of SoE is not Selling items, but is simply acting as a broker did you fail to understand? The act of Selling items is already happening on all servers, on ALL games. All SoE is looking to do here is to help control the flow of items and coin by allowing it, through their system. Of course its reasonable to expect them to charge for the service it takes time, man power and software to do so. People buying equipment off Player auctions and such gives no tangible advantage. You see another factor you are failing to realize here is guild structure and how they tie into the sociopolitical spectrum of mmorpgs and how they influence the econ as far as the high end stuff goes. It really does not matter how good someone's gear is, In the end the "Uber" mobs are controlled by the top tier guilds. And All of us have systems in place that if someone wants in the guild they have to prove the kind of player they are. Gear or no gear, if the player is inexperienced and Sucks, as the guy in the example you gave did at paintball. Then it does not matter how much they spent, they are now an overtwinked skilless n00b with no chance at buying their way into the high end game. So they have the best gear available outside top guilds...Does not help them a bit if all they can do is kill experience mobs, because the top guilds reject them.
Now again you addressed the point on those who have studied economics, Good for them here I will go ahead and clue you in on something in the business world. Degree's in the Business world Mean positively Jack. If you do not have the Experience to do the job, the guy with no degree and the working experience is going to get the job over you. I run into this all the time when I am hiring employees. I frankly could care less if you come to me with 50 degree's, unless you can show me you understand that how business in the real world works vs the hypothetical theories in a book, I do not care about your degree's. This is my point on the MMORPG econ, I have 10 years active working experience with them, I have seen how it works with Tons of variables, I have used each system to play the game how I prefer. Each mmog Econ is distinctly different, however There is a competely different ruleset governing how they work. I am afraid I have yet to see a single book that came even close to comprehending how they work. Most of these guys are speaking from years of economic's study, and if I was looking for stock market advise they would have my undivided attention. However they are only speaking on theory and principle when it comes to mmog's because few if any of them have any real experience playing these game's, so you are most correct when you assume that my stance is at this point their opinion is null and void. Sorry there is simply a black and white difference between Theory and Fact, Now find me one of these guys who has working experience and what he has to say actually lines up with how a MMOG econ really works, you have my interest.
But dont post another article like that, that Only vaguely references mmogs and expect me to buy into it. In case you have not figured it out yet, I am far from simple minded so I am not going to buy into senseless crap like that.
I think that the final word here is that out of game sales are here to stay, and stay they will. Whether or not you choose to participate, is up to you.
What SOE is doing is something the the creators of second life have been doing for years. They are profiting off of in-game data. Actually, if you look at it very rougly, they have been doing all along by charging customers to play a virtual character. This, to me, is just another way to profit off of us. Face it people, SOE and all the other companies dont give a s**t about gameplay or rolepaying... they care about making an extra buck. Who can blame 'em?
"By SOE legitimizing the buying/selling of ingame content they add a new avenue to advance within an MMO: money. It no longer becomes who's got the most skills or who has spent the most time in the virtual world, but soley about who has the most money."
ROFL!!!
NEW avenue to advance? I guess if you ignore the fact that YOU CAN ALREADY BUY LEVEL 50s ON ALMOST EVERY SERVER, and that buying gear alone DOES NOT HELP YOU FINISH GROUP/GUILD RAIDS TO ENTER NEW ZONES, and if you ignore the fact that gear does not equal ability in game, errr, I guess if you ignore all of those things, then you might say somethign like the quote above. But anyone who knows the game at all knows that assessment is WAY OFF.
It can never solely be about who has the most money because you still have to spend time in the game to learn how to play it. If you want to get to raid level, you also have to spend time in game wooing high end guilds to get accepted into them, and they will most definitely require a certain amount of raid time, if not consistent presence several days per week. Anyone can buy a lvl 50 whatever, that doesn't mean you have anything to DO with it. ROFL.
And quite frankly, all this doomsaying about what will happen is complete BS, since YOU CAN ALREADY DO EVERYTHING THEY ARE GOING TO HELP YOU DO. It's just that now you won't have to risk getting a purchased character/account ripped back when the original owner calls in to support to reclaim it, and you won't risk not getting items you pay for because you pay for them first and then pick them up later in game.
Just because you guys ignore it and don't participate does not mean it doesn't ALREADY affect your game, so don't come out now saying it will ruin the whole game when it ALREADY HAPPENS and doesn't ruin anything that hasn't already been "ruined" for 5+ years.
Habit is not to be flung out the window by any man, but coaxed down the stairs one step at a time. - Mark Twain
I'm not envious, nor am i worried about it unbalancing the game. BTW just because you buy an online item or credit doesnt mean you must suck. Seems thats the defacto statement thats being made. I'm also fairly sure very competant people have also bought stuff online as well and yes many do suck and thats the only way they can play.
I View it as cheating, its like someone taking steroids and using a short cut to beat everyone else's hard work. But real life being what it is, hardly a surprise. They should let people know who these cheaters er ummm... participants of this trend... are. Maybe put a big l33t d3wd tag above their heads.
What about people that get a complete set of high-end gear from their friends or guilds? Would you call them cheaters as well?
What about people that get a complete set of high-end gear from their friends or guilds? Would you call them cheaters as well?
You know I have now participated in at least 15 of these threads, and heard a few hundred opinions on the subject and I have come to the conclusion you can sum up the only argument they made 99% of the posts in 2 words. IT's Unfair.
This also reminds me of a number of years back when EQ was really starting to take off a similiar debate with the same results. Back then the issue was not the selling of items, but that of higher level char's "Twinking" their low level alts. Its amusing the arguments are Exactlly the same, you have your camp of cheater screamers, you have your camp of Its Immoral screamers, and of course the..Its not Fair ones as well. Back then people ranted and raved on the forums that it simply was not fair for their "legit" warrior to have to compete against a "twink" the whole Groups would tank a twink over a legit because of faster leveling..etc etc.
Anyhow I simply find the argument ironic, and frighteningly familiar..a few minor difference's but in the end..the same.
This is such a silly arguement.
SOE isn't doing anything new.
SOE isn't giving players anything they didn't already have access to.
All SOE is doing is making sure nobody gets burned in the process.
Used to be you'd take your wallet into your own hands when buying items/cash/characters off Ebay or whatever. I can't count the number of times, as a Guide in EQ1, that we'd hear some sob story about how some rube bought a character from another player and they "hacked" the account back.
We'd be like: Did you get his CD Key from him?
Player: "no"
Us: "sorry too bad then, you should be talking to customer support on the phone but we can tell you they won't do anything since you can't prove ownership. You have to have th original CD Key for the account".
Player: "But that's not fair!?!"
Us: (laughing behind our keyboard) "Neither is buying a level 50 character"
Frankly I am looking forward to seeing how this turns out. It *could* be a nightmare waiting to happen or it could change nothing except giving players a safer avenue to buy things. Personally I think that if nothing major changes from what happens already (hey Ebay and IGE and other sites have allowed this crap for years) then I'm all for it because it means people won't get ripped off anymore.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
What about people that get a complete set of high-end gear from their friends or guilds? Would you call them cheaters as well?
No because thats part of the game mechanics. Using money to buy virtual stuff is using an outside influence that is NOT available to all. Everyone has the chance to meet people or join a guild and have things given to them.
All SOE is doing is making sure nobody gets burned in the process.
Yeah everyone believes thats the real reason for it.....
Incorrect. Making friends with a good guild is exponentially more difficult than earning $10 to buy a good armor set.
Try again.
I went to a game's industry dinner/panel last night here in the seattle area (bellevue actually). There were the usual mix of industry execs, lawyers, CPAs, VCs, etc. It just happend that a person from SOE (a senior programmer) was at my table. This was a guy who has worked on MMOs and is currently part of the SOE:seattle game studio which is working on their next MMO. Someone asked him what he thought of SOE's move into the ingame content for cash trade. I followed up by asking why SOE made this move. His response:
"They felt they were leaving a lot of money on the table."
It didn't have anything to do with protecting customers from fraud or reducing calls to support staff or enhancing the user's experience in the game or fun. It was all about how much extra money they could make. There are plenty of you who will complain that that's their job as a business to make money and i couldn't agree more. It's all in how you go about making money that's important for long term success. Everytime there's an opinion poll on what players think about trading ingame items for cash they are overwhelmingly against it. If SOE was really trying to keep the masses happy then they would not be legitimizing this practice by becoming the middleman. A majority of players do not want this. It's being done for one reason: money. In the long run it does nothing but hurt the economy and spirit of the game.
This type of short-term thinking plagues american business. Somehow the marketing and finance people seem to think consumers are stupid and will put up with any money making scheme businesses invent to part consumers with their cash. In the short run they will, in the long run they will rebel and punish companies for it.
It reminds me of how the US auto industry abused consumers for years. In the early 70s american cars dominated the market in the US. The Japanese had almost 0% marketshare. Unlike the US manufacturers who purposely built cars that would breakdown prematurely, the japanese designed cars that would last. By the late 80s American car makers would quickly losing ground to japanese competitors because american cars were seen as poorly built compared to their japanese counterparts. I remember seeing an interview with Lee Iacocca, then head of Chrysler Corp. who was lamenting (he was blaming american consumers) about americans buying japanese cars instead of american ones. He pointed to a joint project between dodge and mitsubishi corp. They developed a car that was branded under both names: the dodge stealth and the mitsubishi 3000. They were the same car and they were built in the same factory. The only difference was the name. Iacocca couldn't understand why the mitsubishis outsold the dodges 3 to 1.
What Lee Iacocca couldn't figure out from his arrogant amercian businessman point of view was that amercian consumers were sick and tired of getting the shaft from US automakers and were instead buying cars from the japanese who had a proven their quality. While the US automakers were making cars that didn't last -- so consumers would buy replacement cars more often -- the japanese took a much longer-term outlook of their customers. The japanese reasoned that if they built quality products that they would be rewarded in the long term. This was in direct contrast to the americans who couldn't see past the end of their noses.
This is very similar to the situation here: sure SOE will derive additional revenue from making this move. What they fail to recognize is the long-term damage they are doing to their game and their franchise. Consumers do not easily forget such behavior.
Before someone tries to say that SOE is japanese, it's not. SOE is owned by Sony Corporation of America. We've got good 'ol american businessmen -- and worse yet the american way of business -- running our version of sony.
PD
www.TheChippedDagger.com My 90-day 2D Java MMORPG project
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin
If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
The Japanese automakers leveraged exceptional levels of effeciency and technical skill in creating a vehicle that was dramatically less expensive than the average american vehicle, and more importantly they correctly divined the need to have better feul effeciency at the time that OPEC created an oil embargo and a massive feul crisis worldwide.
The truth of the quality of the vehicles is that the american car (made of steel) was far more sturdy and reliable than the fiberglass-framed economy cars of the Japanese, but American consumers saw the price point and feul savings and jumped on board en masse. The cars were worse by quality (dramatically so in many cases) but represented a greater long-term savings. It was classic capitalist innovation and opportunism that gave the Japanese automakers a huge edge.
If you wish to fault American lack of foresight to see this coming you are certainly welcome to do so...and if you call that "arrogance" then have at it. But the truth quite simply is that the American automaker was beaten by a stronger business model. Your conclusion of the quality of Japanese product is ridiculously incorrect.
Once again the argument is thrust forward: "this will damage the game."
How will it damage the game? Your previous arguments (inflationary economies) has been resoundly trounced, as it should be. Would you like to ferret out another cockeyed theory to suggest that this will happen?
Incorrect. Making friends with a good guild is exponentially more difficult than earning $10 to buy a good armor set.
Hardly incorrect, you are just being short sightedand looking at things at its most simplistic. You assume alot in your argument.
#1 that people only spend 10 dollars, many people spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Next time you play Chess, tell someone since you bought 4 extra Queens and 2 extra knights that you should play with them. Games have rules, rules are meant as a balancing factor.
#2 that everyone has access to spend an additional 10dollars or far more. Alot of people are probably on fixed incomes. From being to young to work or not having a job, being in school, job not paying enough and to many bills, being disabled, etc.
www.TheChippedDagger.com My 90-day 2D Java MMORPG project
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin
If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
You are absolutely correct to point out that Japanese vehicles were not created with fiberglass frames. Touche. I retract that statement.
I do, however, stand firmly behind my analysis of the Japanese domination of the auto industry in the late 70s and early 80s. The history books are pretty clear about how that happened. As for the continuance of domination into the post-OPEC crisis, that was primarily momentum which is typical of any industry.
Regardless, this has no direct merit to the argument of virtual item resale and its impact to the MMOG genre.
You are entirely skirting the prime question: how does virtual item resale hurt the game? Do you have another argument besides inflation to support this meritless claim? Your own emotions are not a base by which to support so broad a statement.
What a ridiculous argument. Next time you play chess, as your friend to give you another queen. Since it cannot happen, the analogy made by purchasing it is equally ridiculous.
This is true, though most people can earn a few dollars with even a marginal effort. But far more valid and to the point are those with poor social skills (even antisocial skills) or those who simply desire to "go it alone" These players are handicapped by not being able to beg off of others that which they could obtain through a few dollars expenditure.
Again, it is a matter of choice. They are not compelled to engage in this behavior, but they may choose to do so if they wish it. For some, money is easier to come by than friendship...for others, the reverse is true. Either way it's twinking one's own character through means not obtained directly through one's own actions...you're not looting that which you either buy or are gifted. You may find one distasteful, but they are nearly identical in effect and practice.
The Japanese automakers leveraged exceptional levels of effeciency and technical skill in creating a vehicle that was dramatically less expensive than the average american vehicle, and more importantly they correctly divined the need to have better feul effeciency at the time that OPEC created an oil embargo and a massive feul crisis worldwide.
Where do you come up with this stuff, Japanese cars were made to be more fuel efficient long before all that becaue Japan has NO oil! They strictly import it and they realized fuel economy was extremely important to reduce their reliance on foreign oil. They didnt go, "man, we need to stop making these gas guzzlers just to compete in the american market".
The truth of the quality of the vehicles is that the american car (made of steel) was far more sturdy and reliable than the fiberglass-framed economy cars of the Japanese, but American consumers saw the price point and feul savings and jumped on board en masse. The cars were worse by quality (dramatically so in many cases) but represented a greater long-term savings. It was classic capitalist innovation and opportunism that gave the Japanese automakers a huge edge.
Since when does steel built cars mean reliability? Safety sure, but to make the argument that if a car has a steel frame its more reliable is bordering on idiocy. Are you claiming their engines and transmissions were also built out of fiberglass? And as for these all fiberglass japanese cars, name them since clearly your stating that is the "standard" japanese import at the time.
As for damaging the game, if your talking about the health overall of a game, That remains to be seen the level of damage to the game. Often with these online buying schemes, its a classic pyramid, those who start early gain the biggest reward and those who stick to the game longest, losses everything they've invested. The one way it definently damages the game is when people know they cant compete with people who are buying their way to the top and quit.
Who wants to play a game full of cheaters who always win, hardly a winning formula for success.
The same is true of any pioneer in an online game economy. Those that began leveling early and harvesting early have an edge that they can continue to leverage against anyone. With virtual item resale there is simply one more way to compete.
I've been competing with people who have bought their EQ characters, UO gold, EVE isk and BPOs, and plenty of other schemes...and I've done quite well, as have many others. In almost all of these cases my skills as a player versus their skills were far more valuable than the list of my inventory versus their inventory.
We've all been playing with people who have bought items with real life cash...and in my experiences I've almost never noticed their "advantage". For the most part, they were typically worse players owing to their lack of direct experience in the game. This was almost universally true in EQ, and proved to be true in most of the other games where I have encountered them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scorpes
Next time you play Chess, tell someone since you bought 4 extra Queens and 2 extra knights that you should play with them. Games have rules, rules are meant as a balancing factor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous argument. Next time you play chess, as your friend to give you another queen. Since it cannot happen, the analogy made by purchasing it is equally ridiculous.
It cannot happen? of course it cant he'd tell you to screw off, and if SOE was another player thats what they'd tell you too. The fact is since SOE is just a company looking for a profit they bend the rules to suit their bottom line and make the distastefull a reality. Hence the entire argument. Another analogy since you still dont get it. If you two people were arm wrestling and theirs a referee "SOE" and you pay SOE a fee to allow you to use steroids, wouldnt everyone just love to arm wrestle with you. This is why this trend can be damaging to the game, but if this is the norm, it will disenfranchise alot of people to the gaming market and has the possibily of depressing and retarding the online gaming industry as a whole. Seeing every single game your in the top 20 players/guilds bought their way to the top.
Because one things assured, if ALL things are equal..except one player has 300 bucks to spend on online things then that person will almost always win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Scorpes
The one way it definently damages the game is when people know they cant compete with people who are buying their way to the top and quit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been competing with people who have bought their EQ characters, UO gold, EVE isk and BPOs, and plenty of other schemes...and I've done quite well, as have many others. In almost all of these cases my skills as a player versus their skills were far more valuable than the list of my inventory versus their inventory.
I dont doubt that you are an effective player, and for many they can and will work around it. But at the same time many people will get extremely discouraged by this practice. If this becomes the norm, and no not secret auctions on ebay with disclaimers 10 pages long. Something sanctioned and approved of by game companies.
If SOE released SWG tomorrow, one server allowed bought items and the other insta banned, do you doubt which server most people would play? Thats why its a money issue and not SOE being this angel of mercy and customer service.
Scorpes...the rules for chess and wrestling are firm, decided, and resolute. The rules for EverQuestII are decided by SOE and are as flexible as SOE wishes them to be. They changed the rules, and thus it is now an allowable form of play. You may call it "distastefull" [sic] but it is entirely legitimate.
You can argue that you don't like it until you're satisfied you've made your point, but comparing it to paying off a referee is simply incorrect. Everyone has the same opportunity to purchase these items, limited only by their funds or their conscience. Either limitation is entirely a personal limitation, not a bending of the rules to benefit one party over another.
And what of the player that has 20 hours a day 7 days a week to play versus the hard-working family father who has only 2 hours a day 5 days a week? How can you justify "all things [being] equal" in that case? They are not equal, they are inherently unfair and balanced toward the person with the commodity that equates to advantage.
For the longest time, the "hardcore" player has had a huge advantage in nearly every MMOG on the market. If you can spend nearly every waking hour playing you will inevitably be more advanced, have amassed more wealth, and completed more goals in a game than your average casual gamer. Is this fair? Some will argue that it is, since they are merely leveraging their own advantage as a player.
The argument is identical as regards having funds to purchase items. Some will have it and use it to their advantage, and others will not. This will create inequity, but that is the state of MMOG today in many forms. All things are not equal.
I have make multiple posts already on this thread. In addition i have gone to great lengths in other threads discussing this and similar topics. For convenience, i'll summarize for you here:
First some background: Hopefully we agree that MMOs are games. If you accept that then from dictionary.com we get that games are
1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement
2. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules
So games in our context provide primarily two things: etertainment and competitive activities. Not all games are the same, and not all activities within each game is the same. Some games are highly competitive in nature (such as FPSs or say RTSs in online tournaments). It's the competition and not the entertainment that brings people into those games. In other games (take there.com for example) there is very little in the way of competition and it's almost entirely entertainment value. The key is that many of the activities in games -- and especially MMOs -- have both entertainment and competitive components. Things like leveling up, finding items, PvPing, questing, et cetera. It's not an either or thing. It's many shades of grey and again many of the activities have both entertainment and competitive qualities to them.
Ok, with that said let's look at competitive gameplay features in MMOs. There are generally three ways to gain a competitive advantage in a game: time, skill, or money. In games that reward time for better abilities (EVE online is a prime example), those who have spent the most time ingame have the best abilities and generally come out on top in competitive events. Still other games reward players for skill -- this is much less common in MMOs than it is in FPSes where it doesn't matter as much how long you've been playing the game, but how good your hand eye coordination is. Again it's a skill based thing. Lastly, selling ingame content for real-world cash, this allows people to use money to gain a competitive advantage. This is especially true in games where the items (or players levels) have a much greater impact on competitive outcomes than does skill. This is where most MMOs find themselves.
One of the great things about games -- especially persistent state worlds such as MMOs -- is that they are egalitarian (Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people) in nature. The world is a cruel unfair unyeilding place. In short it sucks for many people. In a game, however, it doesn't matter if you are bill gates or a poor kid who was born a crack baby living in the middle of the ghetto. In the game you are both equals. The game has the unique ability to level the playing field so that anyone who chooses to enter can do so on an equal footing with everyone else.
That isn't to say MMOs are perfectly egalitarian; they are not. Oddly perma-death, or lack of it, does alot to unbalance the world. At any rate that goal here is to create a world where anyone -- and i do mean anyone regardless of social, economic, politicial status, ethnic background, handicap, religion, or whatever -- can enter the world as an equal. This isn't to say that they all end up as equal, but it means that they all start out as equals and it's a matter of what they do in the virtual world that determines their place, not their current situation in the real world. Again this is not a perfect system, but it is the goal.
The problem with allowing real-world cash to be traded for ingame content is that it un levels that playing field. Suddenly the person who has everything in real life, can now have everything in the virtual one as well. He isn't obtaining this from his actions in the virtual world, but from his wealth in the real one. This goes back to an earlier post where i pointed to the doctor making six-figures vs. the teenage on the $20 a week allowance. It doesn't matter how much skill, or how much time, or how much the teen has invested into the virtual world, the doctor can, simply by his real-world wealth, be better than him. This is great for the doctor, and nothing but frustration for the teen.
Still not convinced? I'll give you another example. Take sports. In particular baseball. It strives for this same egalitarian goal: Namely that what should determine who is the best should be based on who has the best skill, rather than some external factors. This isn't to say it's a perfect system, because it isn't. The first problem is that owners can simply "buy" and advantage buy offering higher salaries than other teams can afford. This removes the level playing field and replaces it with a system where the person with the most money has a distinct advantage. This flies in the face of a "fair game". No one likes this, and it's little wonder that many sports have salary caps instituted to stave off just such a problem.
Still not convinced? I'll give you another baseball example. Steriods are another way for players (at an individual level) to unbalance the playing field. Using steriods flies in the face of a fair game. It's little wonder that fans strongly object to the practice. Now many people in this thread have said that the MMO virtual/real world trade system is already broke, so SOE isn't hurting anything by becoming the middleman. I couldn't disagree more. Just like many things in MMOs being broken, the rampant use of steriods in major league baseball has also "broken" that sport. Using their logic, since it's already broken we should not only allow it to continue, but should further legitamize the practice by becoming the middleman. In baseball this would be the same as saying that steriods are already a problem and thus suggesting the league itself should start selling steriods directly to the players to get a cut of the action.
It doesn't matter if we are talking about players buying their way to victory using cash to purchase the "+5 cudgel of blunt-force trauma" or using steriods, in both cases it severly unbalances the playing field and ultimately damages the spirit of the game. Sure enough, SOE becoming a broker is good for them just like MLB selling steriods to their players would make both of them money. In the end however, it ruins the game.
This is what i mean by shortsightedness on SOEs behalf. I can't explain it any better.
PD
www.TheChippedDagger.com My 90-day 2D Java MMORPG project
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin
If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
oops, double post
www.TheChippedDagger.com My 90-day 2D Java MMORPG project
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin
If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
I bet Blizzard will do the same thing. Count on it. Seems like Blizzard and SoE like to mirror each other's moves.
Also you have be a real moron to quit a game over this one issue, especially in a game like EQ2 where buying stuff not your level is a waste of money. Especially when you consider you are using real money.