Razor, i am really worried about turning this into a flame fest, but your position is really naive. I stated in my last two posts that game designers haven't pursued court enforcement because it is too damn expensive to go that route. They would have to sue one company at a time and there are hundreds of entities selling gold online. The legal process would bankrupt the company. That is why game companies don't sue the offenders. Don't aruge any more BS about it being illegal or not.
Once again, this problem infects every aspect of the genre. You can't ask the game producers to stop allowing this activity in game any more than you can ask every gamer to stop buying gold online. If there were no gold buyers, there would be no gold sellers. I bet you have played side by side with a player who buys gold online. Tell them to stop, leave the group if they refuse to change their ways. Take a stand and make the sacrifice for the good of the genre. That's what i do. I tell people how bad it is for a game if people buy gold. I also refuse to group with any person who admits to doing it. That's how things change.
Originally posted by kahnz Razor, i am really worried about turning this into a flame fest, but your position is really naive. I stated in my last two posts that game designers haven't pursued court enforcement because it is too damn expensive to go that route. They would have to sue one company at a time and there are hundreds of entities selling gold online. The legal process would bankrupt the company. That is why game companies don't sue the offenders. Don't aruge any more BS about it being illegal or not. Once again, this problem infects every aspect of the genre. You can't ask the game producers to stop allowing this activity in game any more than you can ask every gamer to stop buying gold online. If there were no gold buyers, there would be no gold sellers. I bet you have played side by side with a player who buys gold online. Tell them to stop, leave the group if they refuse to change their ways. Take a stand and make the sacrifice for the good of the genre. That's what i do. I tell people how bad it is for a game if people buy gold. I also refuse to group with any person who admits to doing it. That's how things change.
Its only going to turn into a flame fest if you continue to focus on your perception of my mental capacity instead of constructing a civil argument. "cant seem to grasp", "naieve" they are unecessary terms if you want a debate and not an argument.
If your sugessting that every case that has ever gone to court has been brought by people who wanted to make a profit instead of a point then Im surprised you decided to use the word naive to defend that position. Many many court cases are fought regardless of the cost. Also there is a thing called a class action, it could easily be employed in this case if the resolve to use it was there. The fact that no one has yet been sued (again I say to my knowledge) simply shows that :
A: The developers lack the resolve and prefer the subscription money (what I believe) or
B: They know they would lose.
Either way take your pick.... its not important.
I repeat that I dont see why anyone should have to take a stand that the game developers themselves are unwilling to take. After all this thing of ours is meant to be a form of entertainment, not a stage for vigilanteeism and street protest.
This thread is about (if you read the topic) whether MMORPG.com should advertise these services.
I believe as you have probably worked out that this point is beyond debate, if it doesnt recognise the fact that the pratice of farming and selling in game currency is perfectly legal and if it were not someone would have challenged that assertion in court. Why should MMORPG.com be denied of a legal source of income as it attempts to both run a business and provide free services ?
Are you calling the operators of this site "accessories to a criminal offence or a civil breach of contract" ?
If so why not just come out and say it. Dont be afraid. Freedom of speech is usually rabidly defended here, Im sure somoene will support you.
Again I put it to you that you are suggesting that the developers of the games are not in control of their own products. I would just love to hear a response from someone from Blizzard or SOE to that assertion. I dont need to though to know what the answer would be.
Its like seeing a running tap and instead of turning it off, you grab a mop and ask your friends to grab a mop too. Thats what your arguing for, think about it. Logic would tell you to seek to turn the tap off then mop up later.
Direct your angst at the source. Thats all Im saying. Its not naieve, its practical and its the only logical position. Unless you prefer wet feet.
------ In any case I grow tired of this topic. Over the past 18 months I have put my position as many ways as I can think of yet still people making their first post on this subject failt to think through the logic of their positions before they post and let emotion and partial facts do their talking.
Thanks for the debate... we will have to agree to disagree.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
instead of just copying my post onto yours in some ridiculous attempt to seem intelligent, you should actually read it. I have not called anyone any names.
I have also never suggested that every plaintiff who went to court was looking for a profit. READ MY POSTS. I simply stated that the business who runs ours favorite games would lose more money trying to sue the many many multinational companies who vialote the game EULA than they would gain by dragging them into court.
Fianlly, selling in game plat is illegal. there is absolutley no question about it. Even the site we are posting on admits that it is bad for the games. However, the internet is a no man's land of legal conundrums. We have to take the high ground and do what is right. We should not take the lame ass path of "what we can get away with."
"Its only going to turn into a flame fest if you continue to focus on your perception of my mental capacity instead of constructing a civil argument."
You said :
"instead of just copying my post onto yours in some ridiculous attempt to seem intelligent"
Considering you have completely failed to address any point I have made. I can only conclude you have no interest in a civil debate at all. Which is hardly surprising considering the wafer thin strength of your agument.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
hahaha! you went back and changed your post after i responded to it. That is the funniest thing i have ever seen. I always wondered why people in forum arguements wasted tons of server space by all that copy and paste. That quote you put in your last post was pointless, because IT'S NOT WHAT YOU ORIGINIALLY SAID, AND NOT WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.
I can't beleive you would stoop that low. That really shows who has no interest in a civil debate.
It seems to me that you really agree with me, but you've already made such an ass of yourself that you just can't admit it.
FYI i have adressed your arguments point by point. If you really have any issues with my points just ask me about any of them and i'll try to explain myself more thoroughly. However, you should really read over what you are saying before you hit "Post Message." I mean people do read this, you know.
not to sound to offensive, and i didnt read this entire thread but
If we decide we do not like this particular aspect of the genre, then what stops us from forbidding advertising from games we did not review strongly?
That is IMHO the dumbest thing i have ever heard in my life. I'm sorry staff of mmorpg.com i know your all smart people but that sentence just defies all logic.
The difference here is that gold selling is -not- a part of the game, it is something that -happens- inside of a game, but its not a -part- of it. Advertising a game itself weither you like it or not is still advertisement of a GAME, this is not a game, its not offered by any game, and its against all the games rules.
You see stores that sell illegal copies of games and movies being shut down and the like, im sure as hell any newspaper having a 1 page ad of the store would get in trouble for that. or even a tv commercial for it. It wouldn't last that long. Sure you may claim that its different because its not technically illegal for this practice(it is against game rules and accounts WILL be banned for doing it.) It is my personal opinion that mmorpg sites should follow the same rules as the mmorpgs they follow.
Would you guys allow websites that teach how to hack a server, how to run cheats, how to exploit features of the game to purchase advertising space? I even went through the same discussion with the admin of onrpg(me being a mod of it and all). I KNOW it's a needed feature for you guys to support the website. But surely there has to be better ad sources out there which arent against every single mmos policy. (onrpg even added intellitext in exchange for the adds(as was told to me by the admin) but the ad still stands there. It really is a shame. And comes down to the fact that people seem to believe that just because something exists and is used, that its all right.
Razor, I honestly have to applaud your comments in this thread. Very well thought out and written. I agree with just about everything you said 100%.
Bladin, I think you missed the entire point of his post. MMORPG.com has decide to remain neutral. In all honesty i'm glad they did. They wouldn't be a very good MMORPG/Game site if they didn't. Sure, all of them have their own moral opinions on the whole Ebaying thing. Even been a few post by them on it. Not once though have they let their opinions on the matter sway a thread or debate on it. They remained for the better part unbiased and neutral as any good game site should.
It's up to the developers to put an end to ebaying. It's up to subscribers to decide whether or not to use these services. Like Razorback said it's not MMORPG.com's job to police or make moral judgements on the validity of such services. They are simply doing what they have chosen to do. Which is providing unbias/neutral opinions, a free forum, features, editorials, amongst many other things the site provides.
Also as Lepidus pointed out. Mostly all their advertisements thus far have been MMORPG oriented.
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
Roin, honestly i think YOU are missing the point. Buying and selling gold for RL cash is explicitly against the rules of every game i have ever played. MMORPG.com has absolutely NOT remained neutral. They have spoken with their pocketbooks, and they have said that it's OK to buy gold from these POS gold farmers that ruin the longetivity of our favorite games. In fact, they encourage it because they are ADVERTISING the very action. While i am typing this very message, there is a dwarf asking me if "I have what it takes to be the best" How can yuo possibly say that this forum is being nuetral? This forum is saying that the "best" buy gold.
I mean you could read through all these 12 point font rants with no real visual enticement. If you did that, you would realize that broken economies ruin games. But hey! why do tht when you can just look at the banner ad at the top and side of the screen which will tell you to HELP DESTROY a game by flooding its economy with unearned gold.
[quote]Originally posted by kahnz [b]Roin, honestly i think YOU are missing the point. Buying and selling gold for RL cash is explicitly against the rules of every game i have ever played. MMORPG.com has absolutely NOT remained neutral. They have spoken with their pocketbooks, and they have said that it's OK to buy gold from these POS gold farmers that ruin the longetivity of our favorite games. In fact, they encourage it because they are ADVERTISING the very action. While i am typing this very message, there is a dwarf asking me if "I have what it takes to be the best" How can yuo possibly say that this forum is being nuetral? This forum is saying that the "best" buy gold. I mean you could read through all these 12 point font rants with no real visual enticement. If you did that, you would realize that broken economies ruin games. But hey! why do tht when you can just look at the banner ad at the top and side of the screen which will tell you to HELP DESTROY a game by flooding its economy with unearned gold. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one said the forum is neutral. I said the MMORPG.com is neutral. How many topics have you seen created by MMORPG.com staff pretaining to ebaying/gold selling? Last time I checked none. Those threads were created by the members of MMORPG.com. The regular people like you and me. So yes MMORPG.com is neutral. Each and every staff person working for the site. Probably has varying opinions and feelings on the whole matter. You know what though. They never let it sway them into making bad decisions. You never see topics by people pissed off about the ads being locked/deleted. You never hear them saying if you don't stop bring up the topic, you will be banned. You never hear them saying anything, but that people should form their own opinions on the matter. They've never tried to force their opinions on others. The ads are there for the people that wish to use such services. For the people that don't. The banners are so small that chances are you probably missed it. Till someone created a topic pointing it out.
Like I said you and the other guy are missing the point. Say for example the people over at MMORPG.com decide "Hey we don't like instanced MMO's anymore". So they decide to yank any ads, editiorials, or reviews dealing with games that have instancing. What's next pulling ads from zone based games? Seamless worlds? I'm sorry, but in order to be considered unbias/neutral. It does not provide you the choice of picking and choosing. Ebaying/Gold selling may be illegal in MMO's. That's not the issue. The issue is does ebaying/gold selling fall into the criteria of being part of the MMO genre? Simply put, yes it does. Illegal or not, the selling of virtual items and money is apart of the MMO community/genre. If MMORPG.com wants all their ads to be unbias/neutral while remaining MMO oriented. Then yes they have every right to put up ads/banners from IGE and whoever else they like to.
Morality doesn't enter into when you decide to remain neutral. Because at that point you are agreeing to show both sides of the fence. Whether they be good or bad. I've never bought anything from any gold seller/ebayer, but I know for a fact. If I was trying to run a site dedicated to being a neutral reporter of most things MMO. I wouldn't turn down an source of revenue from people like IGE either. Because at that point I wouldn't unbias anymore, now would I?
It's not their job to police MMO's or force their own morale decisions about what's right and wrong in MMOs. If you have such a problem with Ebaying/Gold Sellers. Talk to developers, publishers, investors. Tell them to stop turning a blind cheek to it. If you think they aren't the problem you need look no further then say RFO. Codemasters forums has several topics of pics of Chinese farmers. Have they done anything about it? Nope, they've done nothing to date about it. So if you want to point a finger at someone. I think you should try pointing it in the right place for once.
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
Legally, all those things are allowed in games and are a big part of them - whether we like them or not. If the services they offered were not legal, they'd have long since been sued into oblivion. [/b][/quote]
Seriously false lagic there, and risky to state like that honestly. There are many variables not being considered, primarily international laws and interactions between countries. As well as are they not being sued because of fly-by-night style operations? it isn't to hard to misroute your IP information, and those catching possible violators in games really only have the power to bann accoutns and put the account on notice, but how many have false information and would cost massive amounts of cash to discover the actually ppl involved in the act?
Simpley put they may not be being "sued into oblivion" just because of all the additional costs before they have a traceable entity to sue.
A note to add. Many people have brought up interviews and features we do with anti-gold-farming companies, such as Sigil.
I assure you, we do not hide our advertisements. We cover all major MMOs and Vanguard is no different. It is their reasons to speak to us, but keep in mind that ads have no impact on what we do editorially. For example, we've run very anti-IGE op. eds, we've given poor reviews to games that advertise with us and great reviews to games that do not. Honestly, save what I see on the page, I am not even aware of who advertises with us and how much. The two departments are literally separated by a half dozen time zones
Letting these companies advertise lets readers make their own decisions. IGE and co. wont go away because a website does not let them advertise. The ads we run are up front and obvious what they are and as I've said before, the companies wouldn't be buying the space if they didn't see people clicking on them. If we make a moral judgement here, as I and others have pointed out, where does it end?
Plus, at least the ads are relevent to a number of our readers. Would you rather see McMMORPG.com?
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Originally posted by Lepidus Letting these companies advertise lets readers make their own decisions. IGE and co. wont go away because a website does not let them advertise. The ads we run are up front and obvious what they are and as I've said before, the companies wouldn't be buying the space if they didn't see people clicking on them. If we make a moral judgement here, as I and others have pointed out, where does it end?Plus, at least the ads are relevent to a number of our readers. Would you rather see McMMORPG.com?
Your initial statment was trying to draw a false connection between journalistic responsibiltyt of ethics and a journalistic disconnect from responsability that doesn't exist. Polotical advertising is a red herring your stance, to be blunt.
What you really stated is that if you pay for the ad space you can put anythign you want in it that you don't know to be illegal for sure, be it legal or not. Either a poorly worded description of your policy was used, or you have a poor policy. That is what i was saying was risking and possibly dangerous.
As far as the ads go specifically, I don't care what is there. I don't use those services and I ignore the ads. I do not know if the services are legal or not, but I assume you have access to some sort of professional in copyright law and should have that discussion with them. If they give you the thumbs up then restate policy along the lines of: We have inquired about the legality of the ads and have been advised we are not responsible for the services advertised, merely the ad on our site. People can't argue that, only argue over the existance of the copmanies themselves.
Lepidus, I appreciate you at least following this thread as it shows you guys are interested in the users opinions on the subject.
OK basically before i start we need to get one thing straightened out, and that is Neutrality. As a few have pointed out, even if you say your neutral, you are not at this time! Read on to find out why.
So I'll just add one more view that ties in with what you are saying for the ads' validity. You say that the advertisers are still getting plenty of hits etc and so part of the visitors to this site are actually the right target for those adds.. well this in almost all likelihood is not the case and is actually the exact opposite: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
An advertisement is not a service to the target audience at all. It is a service to the advertisers of that product(or in this case someone elses) who are trying to target an audience, as they are the ones generating traffic and revenue and hence why they pay you to host their ads, correct? The ads drive people to these companies that otherwise may not have even ever considered going there on their own. So when you are looking at advertising, there is a very real MORAL (and yes, legal) issue that you need to consider as the ads are driving people to those services, right? So by you hosting ads for those services, do you not acknowledge that it drives people there more than they would go by their own will? I mean, that is the very purpose of advertisement. So how can you say you are neutral? Here is some more insight to further illustrate:
With the huge influx of players to the scene (largely through WoW) there are also plenty of "neutral" people who just don't know of the pro's and con's of the subject and have not formed an opinion of their own yet. By seeing these ads on your site, gold selling and other types of, otherwise negative, activities and practices in MMORPGs are instantly validated to them! You can see to the extent this applies simply by looking at the passionate views against gold selling in this very thread and the almost opposite, mediocre support and evidence (if any) for gold selling. In fact, looking back over it, I see no real "supporters" of the actual activity of using these sites, only supporters of your right to host them.
So furthermore, if we combine these two facts: that there is passionate, and factual support against the ads and on the other hand theres only support for your RIGHT to use them, then almost by definition this topic indeed becomes an ethical one; One that is very clear. Basically, from what we are analyzing, all that is holding you back is your OWN morals as the great majority of people do not want it and the left over just respect your right to go either way. Infact, by running these ads and influencing peoples perception of the legality/validity/and overall acceptance of these ads, you are giving the thumbs up on them. To be neutral you would need to neither support nor make any policy against them. At the moment you are supporting and giving them merit which is what we are fighting to stop. So hold on, lets look at it like this... if you take the ads down we will all win, no? ... You guys, no doubt, can get other, good (clean) advertising dollars, you'll gain more respect from the majority of your users, you'll be viewed more favorably in the eyes of companies like Sigil and other big names, the people against the ads will be happy with your site, the people respecting your right to go either way will continue to do so, and MOST importantly, the impact on our games WILL, if only the very slightest bit, be lessened from virtual traders, and you'll be setting an example....and example that is growing with more and more weight as many big companies start taking a stand.
Oh and I'm afraid this may be bordering on a cliche but revolutions only happen when a lot of smaller individuals start to work together, and so far there is steady growth in the people grouping together for our revolution, so why don't you guys help out and join the fight, instead of standing idly by(or even worse, actually supporting it by running ads), especially if your acknowledging that this type of stuff is wrong anyway?
Oh and one more note of my own Lepidus: Do you guys consider MMORPG.com higher in journalistic merit than PCGamer? Because you obviously must know that PC gamer magazine has denounced all advertising from secondary market companies a few months ago. Did they break their neutrality by taking such a stand? NO, it just further proves my point from above. I think the difference is between MORALS and ETHICS, which is a fine line, but a line that does exist. Also i just checked and saw that since last time i posted it, there have been 5 sites added to the no gold network (on Feb23) including big sites like World of Warcraft Stratics...
PS: Lepidus can you be so kind as to rally the information in this thread to the department who is in charge of advertising, or if not, can you send me or post their e-mail? I would appreciate it.
I need to follow this topic with more regularity, so there won't be so many things to say at once.
"Say for example the people over at MMORPG.com decide "Hey we don't like instanced MMO's anymore". So they decide to yank any ads, editiorials, or reviews dealing with games that have instancing. What's next pulling ads from zone based games? Seamless worlds? I'm sorry, but in order to be considered unbias/neutral. It does not provide you the choice of picking and choosing."
Maybe I should have let that one lie there untouched, but there is something extremely deceptive about this logic. The examples provided in the above statement are we don't like a particular type of game. The basis for this discussion is we don't like a "service" that is in breach of most EULA's - and knows it. Not excluding a single game.
And it is true that developerside EULA enforcement is necessary, but even so we are heavily shifting the burden upon the victim... Let's swap the EULA with any other written agreement. Between me and another person instead. I provide a service and permit another to take advantage of it, but not to share this advantage with others in any way. If he does, it is his fault even if I don't stop him. That was point one, "the ethics are still poor". Point two, "It is not that easy", coming up next.
Somebody pointed out that you can easily find people who farm. Anybody can lead you to a farmer. So it would be easy enough to boot/ban farmers regularly. But they probably outnumber staffers, and I'm not currently sure how one is proven to be a farmer of gold or other goods. I mean: If the staff simply took your word for it when you pointed at a fellow who had been making your day difficult... What? The fellow (possibly innocent, you wouldn't know) got banned? Those who enforce policies need to spend time on finding those who break the rules, and then possibly spend more time verifying it. And to take it from there and to court would probably be pointless.
The games can probably get better at it, but I don't see it as a reason for us to wait idly for them to make their move. As for MMORPG.com's neutrality: Are you universally neutral? I don't see the need for you to be neutral beyond the relevant subject of your own journalistic efforts. That would be the actual games. IGE is not a game, and thus I don't see the need for you to have a neutral stance towards them.
With regards to the mention of landmines and such production as a better starting point for discussions of morality in advertising: That is hardly relevant. Such advertisements are not likely to appear on this site, and this site is what we are discussing. My money would be better spent feeding children in Africa than paying for an internet connection, and that connection has the same kind of relevance. (Implied, not real)
Exactly how is PC Gamer's precedent on this actually dangerous? I'd like to see the point elaborated.
The future: Adellion Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants) Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens) Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Originally posted by Kormac Exactly how is PC Gamer's precedent on this actually dangerous? I'd like to see the point elaborated.
Our position is no different than that of mainstream media when faced with similar situations. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it would apply.
Say the NY Times editors do not agree with the war in Iraq. In the next election, your Democrats run against war and the Republics run for war. Can the NY Times then decide because they morally do not agree with the war that they will only run advertisments for one political party?
Maybe the Washington Post then decides they do not agree with Nike's production practices overseas. Are they then allowed to only advertise Reebok shoes?
That is the reason for not making moral judgments when it comes to gold traders. Yes, it is not likely our advertisers will ever be on such important issues, but the principal still applies.
It is for that reason I think the PC Gamer decision is dangerous. They've set the precident and can now have any ads they publish called into question. It's a slippery slope.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Lepidus, the difference is that in a political election people are aware of the ideas of the different sides or at least should be to make their decision. Here you are promoting one side over the other, and no whether you get payed from the other side is not relevant in this argument, because money is not a deciding factor for what is right or what is not. Again this is about having good business Ethics not morals (i'll find a good quote in a sec).
Further, political "advertising" does not exist as other advertising for products or services in a capitalistic state. In politics the party represents a set of goals/ideals/future plans and promises etc. that they are theoretically aiming for to better society as a whole or the community that they will serve (considering we are looking at a democracy). Here the secondary market, undeniably, exists for primarily their own benefit and profiteering.
So again, for you to be neutral you would need to represent both the sellers and the opposers.
here is a good quote for the morality vs. ethics issue:
------------------------quote:
The difference between morals and ethics is essentially one of action. Ethics is defined as "the science of morals." It is so defined because morals have no science - i.e. morality cannot be proven to be "good" by either logic or evidence. The word "good" itself is problematical, since objective values do not actually exist. But, shelving that rather complex issue, a moral principle is something considered to be good in itself; the goodness of an ethical principle, on the other hand, depends on its effects.
This latter definition is obviously unsatisfactory, since it means an action can never be truly judged as ethical until its effects are seen. But, over time, ethics are provable and, more importantly, pragmatic. The media, for instance, have an ethical responsibility to present facts accurately. There is nothing moral about this: it is eminently practical since, if a newspaper does not have the confidence of the reading public, it will not sell. That is why The Rising Sunis doomed to failure.
However, all ethical principles are underlain by moral axioms. In journalism, the axioms are that there is some inherent good in truth and free speech - assumptions that are largely unprovable. But the unprovability of its axioms does not necessarily reduce the power of a system or an institution. In geometry, for example, Euclid's axioms must be accepted as givens; in mathematics, Godel's First Theorem shows that any consistent system of logic contains formulae that are unprovable within the system; and even in science, the fundamental principle of induction (inferring a general law from particular instances) was shown by the philosopher David Hume to be purely an assumption.
Ethics, however, is far more complicated than mathematics or science. It impacts on every aspect of human behaviour, from sex to social organization. The problem in societies like ours is that morals too often substitute for ethics. Despite all proof to the contrary, most people assume that a person who claims moral belief will be ethically above-board. The man who stole one million dollars from the Presbyterian church would never have been able to do it so easily if he wasn't a church elder. And that is the problem: people who consider themselves morally superior often behave as though they are above secular ethical obligations.
And if you check that article its actually a pretty good read. LOL and btw its amazing how much articles/papers/essays etc there are on ethics vs morals, i had no idea, just google it and you'll see what i mean! this one i just picked at random...
EDIT: Oh and your comparison with the nike sweatshops etc is inaccurate in this context. Nike is a "dev company", and therefore THEY deserve equal treatment to other dev companies that engage in the same types of practices, whether its allowing or not allowing; And this is where i see your "slippery slope" metaphor come in.. but the truth is that in this case it is very easy to draw a clear line that will not be crossed and really its a line that needs not to be.
Here is my own analogy of the issue using your example of clothes and the ethics vs. morals argument: If there is a fashion magazine, even one that advertises for nike etc (who may use practices that are not morally right), they then still will not ethically justify ads for knockoffs of Nike. (This is even an extreme case as Nike may still be morally unjust by using their shady practices). The thing is that those ads are completely against the community and industry which that magazine serves, and so it is not only ethically wrong(which is what can justify you action) but morally wrong also, which is the case with us also. If they are advertising for the producers of clothing brand knockoffs then it is the equivalent of supporting that production, as you have an ethical responsibility to your community to represent the industry correctly.
As for what PC Gamer did, I don't think it is dangerous in the least, actually the very opposite: They stood up and took a stand against something that is a very negative to the industry and also something that they personally believed in. The line they did draw is obvious and crisp and they will continue to stay firmly as one of the largest providers on gaming news.
The flaw in your argument is that you assume your position (that gold selling is wrong) is everyone's position and believe thus it is logical that we would intentionally refuse to advertise for that section of the industry.
Not everyone agrees with you on that.
Your example casts gold-selling operation as something "against the industry" and illegal. Despite your personal opinions on these, no law has forbidden these companies and they have not been convicted of anything. Many people, including many game companies, see no problem with what these companies do. It is not the popular choice, but it is a large minority of gamers and developers. They are not against the industry.
Thus, to suppress this activity by refusing to allow them to advertise, is a dangerous slope.
Think of it another way. Say a heavily far-right parental group decides they do not like movie x due to its content. They tell newspapers that they should not 'support it' by providing them advertising space. These papers cave.
Another paper rebuffs the pressure, runs the ads, but also provides coverage of the issue (news, editorials, interviews, etc.).
To me, the later paper is providing better coverage.
If we proclaim that gold-selling is wrong and take an ethical or moral stand against them by refusing to provide advertising space, we can never run another article on them again editorially. We've clearly stated our bias and it would be improper to report on that issue anymore. This is an important issue that needs to be followed, explored and discussed. We cannot deny its existence.
As it stands now, advertising has no impact on what I can do. I'd like to keep it that way.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
I can understand your (mmorpg.com's) position Lepidus, I really can.
But when you say "Many people, including many game companies, see no problem with what these companies do," you take it all in a very odd direction. The many that accept / appreciate this, whose wishes (read: policies) are not offended / broken do not in any way make up for everybody else.
I am in no way a law person, and this is the way I see things:
Get an advertising policy stating in so many words that in addition to outright illegal bussiness, you will also refuse to advertise:
Companies that knowingly violate the policies / licenses of other people's copyrighted material and intellectual property. This will be resolved as follows:
No company is assumed to violate such a policy until a complaint is received (from the licence owner/distributor), including the necessary information to prove / indicate this. (Probably nothing more than a section of the EULA)
A company that receives such a complaint must either explain how the complaint is wrong, alter / cease service for that particular game, or lose this advertising space.
I mean, most sincerely, that you should be able to state that knowingly violating the rules of another entity's intellectual property as a bussiness practice is close enough to objectively unethical that you can refuse it.
With that in place, I'd say the ball was in somebody else's court fully. Although it would be a bundle of work for the dev's to monitor the many services that are on about. As I suggested it, you're not even responsible for caring until somebody with a specific right to tells you to care.
The future: Adellion Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants) Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens) Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Originally posted by Lepidus The flaw in your argument is that you assume your position (that gold selling is wrong) is everyone's position and believe thus it is logical that we would intentionally refuse to advertise for that section of the industry. Not everyone agrees with you on that. Your example casts gold-selling operation as something "against the industry" and illegal. Despite your personal opinions on these, no law has forbidden these companies and they have not been convicted of anything. Many people, including many game companies, see no problem with what these companies do. It is not the popular choice, but it is a large minority of gamers and developers. They are not against the industry. Thus, to suppress this activity by refusing to allow them to advertise, is a dangerous slope. Think of it another way. Say a heavily far-right parental group decides they do not like movie x due to its content. They tell newspapers that they should not 'support it' by providing them advertising space. These papers cave. Another paper rebuffs the pressure, runs the ads, but also provides coverage of the issue (news, editorials, interviews, etc.). To me, the later paper is providing better coverage. If we proclaim that gold-selling is wrong and take an ethical or moral stand against them by refusing to provide advertising space, we can never run another article on them again editorially. We've clearly stated our bias and it would be improper to report on that issue anymore. This is an important issue that needs to be followed, explored and discussed. We cannot deny its existence. As it stands now, advertising has no impact on what I can do. I'd like to keep it that way.
Lepidus, sorry for the unclear nature of my last post, it was really late and i was half falling asleep. Ok, well as for this one, i too disagree with a lot of the things in the above quote. I agree with Kormacs post and would also like to add a bit..
First off, I really, truly think that if all the people who think this is right (the secondary market) would educate themselves on the issue then they would come to change their minds ethically,morally, they may not care much about the industry, instead just about their own entertainment etc. I mean its just so blatantly obvious. It is directly stated in the ToS or EULA of all "non-secondary market games" (games like second life are what i'll consider "secondary market games").
EDIT: actually, I just checked and even in Second Life it states that you may only trade for real $$ through their interface and not through a third party!
now AGAIN, many people may think file sharing etc is MORALLY right to them. and this may indeed be the case of how they view it. Ethically though file sharing impacts that industry and many many music labels are against it. There are some though, even inside the music field that personally support file sharing and even support their music being shared. Does that make it ethically right? NO. And I download music, yes and personally don't think its overly wrong, however if i go to HMV.com or any other music site, I don't expect to see ads for filesharing software because because overall, ethically its wrong to download music.
When it does become a slippery slope is what your doing NOW!! Where do you now draw the line?? even if your only considering it a "grey area" instead of outright breach of contract... do you now allow private servers to be advertised??? apparently not. Some people think private servers are MORALLY right, so why do you not allow those? Whats the difference between those, except that one will pay you and one wont?? Now, I know this sounds a bit accusatory but if you look at it logically its really whats going on, no? Prove me otherwise.
and AGAIN, your analogy is inaccurate in that, what you refer to is not a "supplementary" service of the industry advertised. That parent group example is just like saying that, just because a large group of people (like myself) think WOW is not worthy to be called an MMO, that you should not even support it on this site...are you going to do that? of course not! and I don't hold any illusions of that fact. The problem arises when you have a supplementary service that affects the industry and community, whether some people consider it right or not compared to their OWN morals and values, it is still ethically wrong to advertise. In your example, this would be advertising downloading movies. Now this example is in very strong correlation to what we see here. Many people do download movies, many morally justify it by their own values but it is stull not 100% legal or ethically right. and guess what, most filesharing companies are not "sued into oblivion", simply because there are many other issues to consider other than weather it is against the law or not(which it undoubtedly is), the fact is that the law just does not support easy ways of dealing with issues like this yet!This really does hit the nail on the head i think, and I don't see how you could deny this logic... im open to being proven otherwise of course.
Additionally, refer to Kormac's comment: Just because some company's may support this activity in their games and they DESIGN their games with this in mind, there are still many many more that are adversely affected by the secondary market that you can't just blanket into the category of "well some company's agree with it".
Now about articles vs ads.. No this makes no sense, please elaborate. Just because PC Gamer ruled out secondary market ads that go against EULAs or ToS of games, that does not rule out their ability to report unbiased articles on the secondary market. They could report on games like Second Life with no problem. I just don't see your logic here. They could even have an unslanted article on why some people use the secondary market, while still holding the same view on advertising. I don't see the correlation. There WOULD be the correlation if theirs was a MORAL decision, but its not...you guessed it, its ethical...
One last analogy before i have to go: If you take someone who supports the making of knockoff brandnames, because they like how its cheap and they can still follow the trends of our society without spending their entire savings, goes and buys that fashion magazine from my last post. Is it reasonable for them to expect ads for knockoffs in that magazine???? No of course not. Here is the thing though, and it refers to a few posts back that i think i didn't explain efficiently:It does not mean that the magazine necessarily has announced all out bloody war on the production of knockoff merchandise, simply that they don't actively support it.........! Yes?
So again MORALITY |= ETHICALITY (which is what you seem to be assuming) Thats exactly what I'm saying: You say you don't want it to be a moral issue but thats exactly how you have come to you conclusion (morally).... by saying "well some people support it"- this is a moral argument, as the fact is that it DOES do damage or cause unwanted affects to these games TO SOME DEGREE, which everyone can see..
If we forget about the law for a sec, its just like saying "well some people agree with or support child pornography" (im just using this to illustrate, and i know its affects are much more adverse but just go with me on it) The sad fact is that some may say and actually belive that morally, but if you look at the affects, it is obvious that it is just not ethical to condone or advertise it. This is why it has now become illegal. (remember that it was not always illegal, it just was made that way after it became a large enough issue in todays social structure and culture, and basically how we view and understand sexuality etc). The same thing will happen to the laws in games after enough people are made aware of the facts... Does that mean that the secondary market is legal as it stands now?? Absolutely not, it just means the law is not yet set up to properly enforce such new issues. So a game company connot phisicaly "sue the secondary market into oblivion" no matter how much they are against it. The most the can reasonably do is ban, which they do, but even that requires a lot of resources and effort to sniff out the offenders.
Ultimately, if it proven to be illegal, I am sure we'll adjust our policies.
However, I believe the question extends beyond the EULAs into whether those EULAs are themselves acceptable. None of us are qualified to debate the legality. As of today, no court has ruled against this. That's all that matters.
It comes down to something I said before. Once you accept it is not illegal now (which we have), banning advertisements becomes a judgment against them. When we do that, we lose any right for editorial comment or debate. We're bias.
I'd rather give them the chance to advertise and retain the independent right to comment on the issue than do away with it all and pretend such an important issue does not exist.
I understand where you guys are coming from too. I don't want you to think that because we disagree, we do not respect your comments on this issue. It boils down to a desire to leave this large question open to debate and I think allowing them the right of advertisement is a large part of that.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Originally posted by Lepidus Ultimately, if it proven to be illegal, I am sure we'll adjust our policies. However, I believe the question extends beyond the EULAs into whether those EULAs are themselves acceptable. None of us are qualified to debate the legality. As of today, no court has ruled against this. That's all that matters. It comes down to something I said before. Once you accept it is not illegal now (which we have), banning advertisements becomes a judgment against them. When we do that, we lose any right for editorial comment or debate. We're bias. I'd rather give them the chance to advertise and retain the independent right to comment on the issue than do away with it all and pretend such an important issue does not exist. I understand where you guys are coming from too. I don't want you to think that because we disagree, we do not respect your comments on this issue. It boils down to a desire to leave this large question open to debate and I think allowing them the right of advertisement is a large part of that.
HMMM really? If you read that paper i linked a few posts back, it talks more or less about this...Is everything that is legal right? Is everything that is illegal wrong? Even Ethically?
I understand what you guys want to avoid but i think its a much slipperier slope if you host these advertisements but have nothing to support the other opinions, maybe apart from this post. For it to be unbiased, you would need to support both (yes you are supporting something if you are taking money from it like this, some may even say "selling out" if you only have one side covered). or you'd need to advertise neither support nor opposition to the issue, in which case you would still have open journalistic reign to report unbiasedly on the two sides, considering you shed equal light on both sides (lol, kinda the definition of unbiased).
******* Now my question goes back to private servers which actually, as you'll see proves my point very well. So my question: Why do you not support the issue of private servers? Is it not a big issue you want to keep open? If yes they why do you not let people advertise them or better yet why don't you host ads for them (again apart from the money issue)? The fact is that they have not yet been proved illegal. Quite the opposite actually: [url]http://tom.insocada.com/2005/11/03/private-wow/[/url]... here is a piece of that article:
"Theres some korean game where a guy wrote a private server, they sued him, but he won, so its now legal to play that game privately."
So what now? are you going to allow people to post private servers or run their ads? The funny thing is that it is the EULA that prohibits reverse engineering the client and running private servers, so the way the laws are for secondary market OR private servers are the same except that with the servers, the affects are a lot more provable to people outside of MMORPGs!
Indeed if you consider the difficulty it would take in explaining how one of these games works to a judge, and then trying to explain what a farmer does to the game and how player achievement works, or even how the subscription model works etc, you can see why the law is so hard to enforce for game companies.
The fact is that people outside of MMOs do not understand all their complexities and they can't be educated in the immense scale of these games under the duration of a simple court trial. Just like that case brought up about the private server. If the court had been MMO players and understood how the game works, then i highly doubt it would have passed the judgement it did. A lot of this may even come from the general negativity surrounding gaming today and the fact that "outsiders" may simply be waiting for a chance to show bad points, and exploit gaming.
If you indeed wish to be able to support this issue though in the future then you need to be unbiased NOW. But i don't see how you are unbiased by running only ads FOR the secondary market. If you are as committed to this as you say, then i would like to see an article with a game company like sigil and putting questions to them like "what is your opinion on the secondary market" or "How does the secondary market influence game economy" etc Then you are creating two sides, because as it stands now you are only supporting this one side. The easier way of course, and even more accurate one, would be to not officially support or oppose either and just be able to report unbiased on both sides.
Originally posted by dunadurium If you indeed wish to be able to support this issue though in the future then you need to be unbiased NOW. But i don't see how you are unbiased by running only ads FOR the secondary market. If you are as committed to this as you say, then i would like to see an article with a game company like sigil and putting questions to them like "what is your opinion on the secondary market" or "How does the secondary market influence game economy" etc Then you are creating two sides, because as it stands now you are only supporting this one side. The easier way of course, and even more accurate one, would be to not officially support or oppose either and just be able to report unbiased on both sides. ~Dunadurium
First, there are no logical ads to support the anti-IGE side. If some game company started a campaign, I don't think we'd refuse to run them though (although, that's not my decision).
We run ads from game companies (at a much larger percentage). That's the best we can do realistically.
As to covering the issue. All I can say is: read the site.
We frequently question this issue. Heck, I just finished recording our podcast interview with Brad McQuaid. A good portion was dedicated to this specific issue. What's more, we have other features planned on the topic.
As to history: check any number of Q&As. The question has come up many, many times. We also ran coverage of the Secondary Market panel at AGC, which many people were highly critical of for mixing coverage of the event with Laura's clearly stated opinion on the issue. I labeled that editorial/opinion. You can see it here (http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/298).
The point is, we've been covering the issue and plan to do more in the future. I believe that if we refuse to run their ads, we relinquish the right to discourse. You disagree. Ultimately, I do not think any number of board posts will change that
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
First, there are no logical ads to support the anti-IGE side.If some game company started a campaign, I don't think we'd refuse to run them though (although, that's not my decision).
Exactly, so how can it be a 2 sided issue. That is partly the point i was trying to make. Im talking just about the ads now, and this is why i bought up the point that you need some form of dedicated opposition of some sort, other than the ads that don't exist.
As to covering the issue. All I can say is: read the site.
We frequently question this issue. Heck, I just finished recording our podcast interview with Brad McQuaid. A good portion was dedicated to this specific issue. What's more, we have other features planned on the topic.
Yes I read the site and i appreciate all the work that goes into it and all the articles, interviews, and everything else. Please don't get me wrong and think im just trying to bash you or something of the sort. This is just one thing that i must disagree with you on, many other things on the site are amazing. My point was what I touched on above, to have something solely discussing this issue, but by the looks of it you guys have it covered(the highlight), now thats great! Really, that is good news. Thank you. I still can't say that it is equal to the slanted influence of an ad but its definitely better than nothing.
Seriously why can't you just say no to these advertisers without making a policy against it? if you just tell them that you already have your advertising space full, then you can still run unbiased coverage on the issue more "purely". With the ad up there it just seems and really feels like you guys are indeed slanted toward one side, ya know? For example, say im reading a good article on the site including issues with the secondary market, not leaning to either side just giving facts and what not and i look up and see a secondary market ad, doesn't that just defeat the purpose of trying to be unbiased on the issue? LOL anyway...
EDIT: BTW, are you refering to a new, march podcast with Brad or the recent one a few weeks ago(that one is only the EQ2 interview)? If the former, then that is very exciting..
I believe that if we refuse to run their ads, we relinquish the right to discourse. You disagree. Ultimately, I do not think any number of board posts will change that
Lol, Yes I do disagree, and frankly, if anything, my contemplation of the issue and the bit of extra looking just reaffirmed my stance. Ads are not the same as content.....and yeah, lol you know my view... well i guess the converse of your statement is true and you guys don't seem to be changing your views.(though the news of more unslanted coverage is promising). I think I would still like the issue of what makes private servers special in this regard answered though...
[quote]Originally posted by dunadurium [b] Seriously, if you just tell them that you already have your advertising space full, then you can still run unbiased coverage on the issue more "purely". With the ad up there it just seems you guys are indeed slanted toward one side, ya know? For example, say im reading a good article on the site about secondary market, not leaning to either side just giving facts and what not and i look up and see a secondary market ad, doesn't that just defeat the purpose of trying to be unbiased on the issue? LOL anyway... [/color] [/b][/quote]
What you suggest is still making a judgement.
And really, how is having ads up there slanting us for or against them? We have ads for all sorts of games, some get good reviews and some get bad reviews. It has nothing to do with anything. By the above logic we should have no advertising at all.
Obviously, that's ideal, but common. We need to eat
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Comments
Razor, i am really worried about turning this into a flame fest, but your position is really naive. I stated in my last two posts that game designers haven't pursued court enforcement because it is too damn expensive to go that route. They would have to sue one company at a time and there are hundreds of entities selling gold online. The legal process would bankrupt the company. That is why game companies don't sue the offenders. Don't aruge any more BS about it being illegal or not.
Once again, this problem infects every aspect of the genre. You can't ask the game producers to stop allowing this activity in game any more than you can ask every gamer to stop buying gold online. If there were no gold buyers, there would be no gold sellers. I bet you have played side by side with a player who buys gold online. Tell them to stop, leave the group if they refuse to change their ways. Take a stand and make the sacrifice for the good of the genre. That's what i do. I tell people how bad it is for a game if people buy gold. I also refuse to group with any person who admits to doing it. That's how things change.
Which FF Character Are You?
Its only going to turn into a flame fest if you continue to focus on your perception of my mental capacity instead of constructing a civil argument. "cant seem to grasp", "naieve" they are unecessary terms if you want a debate and not an argument.
If your sugessting that every case that has ever gone to court has been brought by people who wanted to make a profit instead of a point then Im surprised you decided to use the word naive to defend that position. Many many court cases are fought regardless of the cost. Also there is a thing called a class action, it could easily be employed in this case if the resolve to use it was there. The fact that no one has yet been sued (again I say to my knowledge) simply shows that :
A: The developers lack the resolve and prefer the subscription money (what I believe) or
B: They know they would lose.
Either way take your pick.... its not important.
I repeat that I dont see why anyone should have to take a stand that the game developers themselves are unwilling to take. After all this thing of ours is meant to be a form of entertainment, not a stage for vigilanteeism and street protest.
This thread is about (if you read the topic) whether MMORPG.com should advertise these services.
I believe as you have probably worked out that this point is beyond debate, if it doesnt recognise the fact that the pratice of farming and selling in game currency is perfectly legal and if it were not someone would have challenged that assertion in court. Why should MMORPG.com be denied of a legal source of income as it attempts to both run a business and provide free services ?
Are you calling the operators of this site "accessories to a criminal offence or a civil breach of contract" ?
If so why not just come out and say it. Dont be afraid. Freedom of speech is usually rabidly defended here, Im sure somoene will support you.
Again I put it to you that you are suggesting that the developers of the games are not in control of their own products. I would just love to hear a response from someone from Blizzard or SOE to that assertion. I dont need to though to know what the answer would be.
Its like seeing a running tap and instead of turning it off, you grab a mop and ask your friends to grab a mop too. Thats what your arguing for, think about it. Logic would tell you to seek to turn the tap off then mop up later.
Direct your angst at the source. Thats all Im saying. Its not naieve, its practical and its the only logical position. Unless you prefer wet feet.
------ In any case I grow tired of this topic. Over the past 18 months I have put my position as many ways as I can think of yet still people making their first post on this subject failt to think through the logic of their positions before they post and let emotion and partial facts do their talking.
Thanks for the debate... we will have to agree to disagree.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
instead of just copying my post onto yours in some ridiculous attempt to seem intelligent, you should actually read it. I have not called anyone any names.
I have also never suggested that every plaintiff who went to court was looking for a profit. READ MY POSTS. I simply stated that the business who runs ours favorite games would lose more money trying to sue the many many multinational companies who vialote the game EULA than they would gain by dragging them into court.
Fianlly, selling in game plat is illegal. there is absolutley no question about it. Even the site we are posting on admits that it is bad for the games. However, the internet is a no man's land of legal conundrums. We have to take the high ground and do what is right. We should not take the lame ass path of "what we can get away with."
Which FF Character Are You?
I said :
"Its only going to turn into a flame fest if you continue to focus on your perception of my mental capacity instead of constructing a civil argument."
You said :
"instead of just copying my post onto yours in some ridiculous attempt to seem intelligent"
Considering you have completely failed to address any point I have made. I can only conclude you have no interest in a civil debate at all. Which is hardly surprising considering the wafer thin strength of your agument.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
hahaha! you went back and changed your post after i responded to it. That is the funniest thing i have ever seen. I always wondered why people in forum arguements wasted tons of server space by all that copy and paste. That quote you put in your last post was pointless, because IT'S NOT WHAT YOU ORIGINIALLY SAID, AND NOT WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.
I can't beleive you would stoop that low. That really shows who has no interest in a civil debate.
It seems to me that you really agree with me, but you've already made such an ass of yourself that you just can't admit it.
FYI i have adressed your arguments point by point. If you really have any issues with my points just ask me about any of them and i'll try to explain myself more thoroughly. However, you should really read over what you are saying before you hit "Post Message." I mean people do read this, you know.
Which FF Character Are You?
not to sound to offensive, and i didnt read this entire thread but
That is IMHO the dumbest thing i have ever heard in my life. I'm sorry staff of mmorpg.com i know your all smart people but that sentence just defies all logic.
The difference here is that gold selling is -not- a part of the game, it is something that -happens- inside of a game, but its not a -part- of it. Advertising a game itself weither you like it or not is still advertisement of a GAME, this is not a game, its not offered by any game, and its against all the games rules.
You see stores that sell illegal copies of games and movies being shut down and the like, im sure as hell any newspaper having a 1 page ad of the store would get in trouble for that. or even a tv commercial for it. It wouldn't last that long. Sure you may claim that its different because its not technically illegal for this practice(it is against game rules and accounts WILL be banned for doing it.) It is my personal opinion that mmorpg sites should follow the same rules as the mmorpgs they follow.
Would you guys allow websites that teach how to hack a server, how to run cheats, how to exploit features of the game to purchase advertising space? I even went through the same discussion with the admin of onrpg(me being a mod of it and all). I KNOW it's a needed feature for you guys to support the website. But surely there has to be better ad sources out there which arent against every single mmos policy. (onrpg even added intellitext in exchange for the adds(as was told to me by the admin) but the ad still stands there. It really is a shame. And comes down to the fact that people seem to believe that just because something exists and is used, that its all right.
Razor, I honestly have to applaud your comments in this thread. Very well thought out and written. I agree with just about everything you said 100%.
Bladin, I think you missed the entire point of his post. MMORPG.com has decide to remain neutral. In all honesty i'm glad they did. They wouldn't be a very good MMORPG/Game site if they didn't. Sure, all of them have their own moral opinions on the whole Ebaying thing. Even been a few post by them on it. Not once though have they let their opinions on the matter sway a thread or debate on it. They remained for the better part unbiased and neutral as any good game site should.
It's up to the developers to put an end to ebaying. It's up to subscribers to decide whether or not to use these services. Like Razorback said it's not MMORPG.com's job to police or make moral judgements on the validity of such services. They are simply doing what they have chosen to do. Which is providing unbias/neutral opinions, a free forum, features, editorials, amongst many other things the site provides.
Also as Lepidus pointed out. Mostly all their advertisements thus far have been MMORPG oriented.
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
Roin, honestly i think YOU are missing the point. Buying and selling gold for RL cash is explicitly against the rules of every game i have ever played. MMORPG.com has absolutely NOT remained neutral. They have spoken with their pocketbooks, and they have said that it's OK to buy gold from these POS gold farmers that ruin the longetivity of our favorite games. In fact, they encourage it because they are ADVERTISING the very action. While i am typing this very message, there is a dwarf asking me if "I have what it takes to be the best" How can yuo possibly say that this forum is being nuetral? This forum is saying that the "best" buy gold.
I mean you could read through all these 12 point font rants with no real visual enticement. If you did that, you would realize that broken economies ruin games. But hey! why do tht when you can just look at the banner ad at the top and side of the screen which will tell you to HELP DESTROY a game by flooding its economy with unearned gold.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
any judgement we make is a moral one.
Dana Massey
Lead Content Editor
http://www.mmorpg.com/
*cough* bullshit *cough*
Which FF Character Are You?
[quote]Originally posted by kahnz
[b]Roin, honestly i think YOU are missing the point. Buying and selling gold for RL cash is explicitly against the rules of every game i have ever played. MMORPG.com has absolutely NOT remained neutral. They have spoken with their pocketbooks, and they have said that it's OK to buy gold from these POS gold farmers that ruin the longetivity of our favorite games. In fact, they encourage it because they are ADVERTISING the very action. While i am typing this very message, there is a dwarf asking me if "I have what it takes to be the best" How can yuo possibly say that this forum is being nuetral? This forum is saying that the "best" buy gold.
I mean you could read through all these 12 point font rants with no real visual enticement. If you did that, you would realize that broken economies ruin games. But hey! why do tht when you can just look at the banner ad at the top and side of the screen which will tell you to HELP DESTROY a game by flooding its economy with unearned gold.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
any judgement we make is a moral one.
Dana MasseyLead Content Editor[url=http://www.mmorpg.com/]
*cough* bullshit *cough*
[/b][/quote]
No one said the forum is neutral. I said the MMORPG.com is neutral. How many topics have you seen created by MMORPG.com staff pretaining to ebaying/gold selling? Last time I checked none. Those threads were created by the members of MMORPG.com. The regular people like you and me. So yes MMORPG.com is neutral. Each and every staff person working for the site. Probably has varying opinions and feelings on the whole matter. You know what though. They never let it sway them into making bad decisions. You never see topics by people pissed off about the ads being locked/deleted. You never hear them saying if you don't stop bring up the topic, you will be banned. You never hear them saying anything, but that people should form their own opinions on the matter. They've never tried to force their opinions on others. The ads are there for the people that wish to use such services. For the people that don't. The banners are so small that chances are you probably missed it. Till someone created a topic pointing it out.
Like I said you and the other guy are missing the point. Say for example the people over at MMORPG.com decide "Hey we don't like instanced MMO's anymore". So they decide to yank any ads, editiorials, or reviews dealing with games that have instancing. What's next pulling ads from zone based games? Seamless worlds? I'm sorry, but in order to be considered unbias/neutral. It does not provide you the choice of picking and choosing. Ebaying/Gold selling may be illegal in MMO's. That's not the issue. The issue is does ebaying/gold selling fall into the criteria of being part of the MMO genre? Simply put, yes it does. Illegal or not, the selling of virtual items and money is apart of the MMO community/genre. If MMORPG.com wants all their ads to be unbias/neutral while remaining MMO oriented. Then yes they have every right to put up ads/banners from IGE and whoever else they like to.
Morality doesn't enter into when you decide to remain neutral. Because at that point you are agreeing to show both sides of the fence. Whether they be good or bad. I've never bought anything from any gold seller/ebayer, but I know for a fact. If I was trying to run a site dedicated to being a neutral reporter of most things MMO. I wouldn't turn down an source of revenue from people like IGE either. Because at that point I wouldn't unbias anymore, now would I?
It's not their job to police MMO's or force their own morale decisions about what's right and wrong in MMOs. If you have such a problem with Ebaying/Gold Sellers. Talk to developers, publishers, investors. Tell them to stop turning a blind cheek to it. If you think they aren't the problem you need look no further then say RFO. Codemasters forums has several topics of pics of Chinese farmers. Have they done anything about it? Nope, they've done nothing to date about it. So if you want to point a finger at someone. I think you should try pointing it in the right place for once.
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
[quote]Originally posted by Lepidus
Legally, all those things are allowed in games and are a big part of them - whether we like them or not. If the services they offered were not legal, they'd have long since been sued into oblivion.
[/b][/quote]
Seriously false lagic there, and risky to state like that honestly. There are many variables not being considered, primarily international laws and interactions between countries. As well as are they not being sued because of fly-by-night style operations? it isn't to hard to misroute your IP information, and those catching possible violators in games really only have the power to bann accoutns and put the account on notice, but how many have false information and would cost massive amounts of cash to discover the actually ppl involved in the act?
Simpley put they may not be being "sued into oblivion" just because of all the additional costs before they have a traceable entity to sue.
A note to add. Many people have brought up interviews and features we do with anti-gold-farming companies, such as Sigil.
I assure you, we do not hide our advertisements. We cover all major MMOs and Vanguard is no different. It is their reasons to speak to us, but keep in mind that ads have no impact on what we do editorially. For example, we've run very anti-IGE op. eds, we've given poor reviews to games that advertise with us and great reviews to games that do not. Honestly, save what I see on the page, I am not even aware of who advertises with us and how much. The two departments are literally separated by a half dozen time zones
Letting these companies advertise lets readers make their own decisions. IGE and co. wont go away because a website does not let them advertise. The ads we run are up front and obvious what they are and as I've said before, the companies wouldn't be buying the space if they didn't see people clicking on them. If we make a moral judgement here, as I and others have pointed out, where does it end?
Plus, at least the ads are relevent to a number of our readers. Would you rather see McMMORPG.com?
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Your initial statment was trying to draw a false connection between journalistic responsibiltyt of ethics and a journalistic disconnect from responsability that doesn't exist. Polotical advertising is a red herring your stance, to be blunt.
What you really stated is that if you pay for the ad space you can put anythign you want in it that you don't know to be illegal for sure, be it legal or not. Either a poorly worded description of your policy was used, or you have a poor policy. That is what i was saying was risking and possibly dangerous.
As far as the ads go specifically, I don't care what is there. I don't use those services and I ignore the ads. I do not know if the services are legal or not, but I assume you have access to some sort of professional in copyright law and should have that discussion with them. If they give you the thumbs up then restate policy along the lines of: We have inquired about the legality of the ads and have been advised we are not responsible for the services advertised, merely the ad on our site. People can't argue that, only argue over the existance of the copmanies themselves.
Lepidus, I appreciate you at least following this thread as it shows you guys are interested in the users opinions on the subject.
OK basically before i start we need to get one thing straightened out, and that is Neutrality. As a few have pointed out, even if you say your neutral, you are not at this time! Read on to find out why.
So I'll just add one more view that ties in with what you are saying for the ads' validity. You say that the advertisers are still getting plenty of hits etc and so part of the visitors to this site are actually the right target for those adds.. well this in almost all likelihood is not the case and is actually the exact opposite: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
An advertisement is not a service to the target audience at all. It is a service to the advertisers of that product(or in this case someone elses) who are trying to target an audience, as they are the ones generating traffic and revenue and hence why they pay you to host their ads, correct? The ads drive people to these companies that otherwise may not have even ever considered going there on their own. So when you are looking at advertising, there is a very real MORAL (and yes, legal) issue that you need to consider as the ads are driving people to those services, right? So by you hosting ads for those services, do you not acknowledge that it drives people there more than they would go by their own will? I mean, that is the very purpose of advertisement. So how can you say you are neutral? Here is some more insight to further illustrate:
With the huge influx of players to the scene (largely through WoW) there are also plenty of "neutral" people who just don't know of the pro's and con's of the subject and have not formed an opinion of their own yet. By seeing these ads on your site, gold selling and other types of, otherwise negative, activities and practices in MMORPGs are instantly validated to them! You can see to the extent this applies simply by looking at the passionate views against gold selling in this very thread and the almost opposite, mediocre support and evidence (if any) for gold selling. In fact, looking back over it, I see no real "supporters" of the actual activity of using these sites, only supporters of your right to host them.
So furthermore, if we combine these two facts: that there is passionate, and factual support against the ads and on the other hand theres only support for your RIGHT to use them, then almost by definition this topic indeed becomes an ethical one; One that is very clear. Basically, from what we are analyzing, all that is holding you back is your OWN morals as the great majority of people do not want it and the left over just respect your right to go either way. Infact, by running these ads and influencing peoples perception of the legality/validity/and overall acceptance of these ads, you are giving the thumbs up on them. To be neutral you would need to neither support nor make any policy against them. At the moment you are supporting and giving them merit which is what we are fighting to stop. So hold on, lets look at it like this... if you take the ads down we will all win, no? ... You guys, no doubt, can get other, good (clean) advertising dollars, you'll gain more respect from the majority of your users, you'll be viewed more favorably in the eyes of companies like Sigil and other big names, the people against the ads will be happy with your site, the people respecting your right to go either way will continue to do so, and MOST importantly, the impact on our games WILL, if only the very slightest bit, be lessened from virtual traders, and you'll be setting an example....and example that is growing with more and more weight as many big companies start taking a stand.
Oh and I'm afraid this may be bordering on a cliche but revolutions only happen when a lot of smaller individuals start to work together, and so far there is steady growth in the people grouping together for our revolution, so why don't you guys help out and join the fight, instead of standing idly by(or even worse, actually supporting it by running ads), especially if your acknowledging that this type of stuff is wrong anyway?
Oh and one more note of my own Lepidus: Do you guys consider MMORPG.com higher in journalistic merit than PCGamer? Because you obviously must know that PC gamer magazine has denounced all advertising from secondary market companies a few months ago. Did they break their neutrality by taking such a stand? NO, it just further proves my point from above. I think the difference is between MORALS and ETHICS, which is a fine line, but a line that does exist. Also i just checked and saw that since last time i posted it, there have been 5 sites added to the no gold network (on Feb23) including big sites like World of Warcraft Stratics...
PS: Lepidus can you be so kind as to rally the information in this thread to the department who is in charge of advertising, or if not, can you send me or post their e-mail? I would appreciate it.
~Dunadurium
"Silly rabbit, WoW's for kids"
************************
The people responsible for ads are aware of and reading this thread.
As to PC Gamer, that was their decision. Obviously, I do not personally agree with their logic, because it sets a dangerous precedent.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
I need to follow this topic with more regularity, so there won't be so many things to say at once.
"Say for example the people over at MMORPG.com decide "Hey we don't like instanced MMO's anymore". So they decide to yank any ads, editiorials, or reviews dealing with games that have instancing. What's next pulling ads from zone based games? Seamless worlds? I'm sorry, but in order to be considered unbias/neutral. It does not provide you the choice of picking and choosing."
Maybe I should have let that one lie there untouched, but there is something extremely deceptive about this logic. The examples provided in the above statement are we don't like a particular type of game. The basis for this discussion is we don't like a "service" that is in breach of most EULA's - and knows it. Not excluding a single game.
And it is true that developerside EULA enforcement is necessary, but even so we are heavily shifting the burden upon the victim... Let's swap the EULA with any other written agreement. Between me and another person instead. I provide a service and permit another to take advantage of it, but not to share this advantage with others in any way. If he does, it is his fault even if I don't stop him. That was point one, "the ethics are still poor". Point two, "It is not that easy", coming up next.
Somebody pointed out that you can easily find people who farm. Anybody can lead you to a farmer. So it would be easy enough to boot/ban farmers regularly. But they probably outnumber staffers, and I'm not currently sure how one is proven to be a farmer of gold or other goods. I mean: If the staff simply took your word for it when you pointed at a fellow who had been making your day difficult... What? The fellow (possibly innocent, you wouldn't know) got banned? Those who enforce policies need to spend time on finding those who break the rules, and then possibly spend more time verifying it. And to take it from there and to court would probably be pointless.
The games can probably get better at it, but I don't see it as a reason for us to wait idly for them to make their move. As for MMORPG.com's neutrality: Are you universally neutral? I don't see the need for you to be neutral beyond the relevant subject of your own journalistic efforts. That would be the actual games. IGE is not a game, and thus I don't see the need for you to have a neutral stance towards them.
With regards to the mention of landmines and such production as a better starting point for discussions of morality in advertising: That is hardly relevant. Such advertisements are not likely to appear on this site, and this site is what we are discussing. My money would be better spent feeding children in Africa than paying for an internet connection, and that connection has the same kind of relevance. (Implied, not real)
Exactly how is PC Gamer's precedent on this actually dangerous? I'd like to see the point elaborated.
The future: Adellion
Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually
Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants)
Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens)
Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Our position is no different than that of mainstream media when faced with similar situations. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it would apply.
Say the NY Times editors do not agree with the war in Iraq. In the next election, your Democrats run against war and the Republics run for war. Can the NY Times then decide because they morally do not agree with the war that they will only run advertisments for one political party?
Maybe the Washington Post then decides they do not agree with Nike's production practices overseas. Are they then allowed to only advertise Reebok shoes?
That is the reason for not making moral judgments when it comes to gold traders. Yes, it is not likely our advertisers will ever be on such important issues, but the principal still applies.
It is for that reason I think the PC Gamer decision is dangerous. They've set the precident and can now have any ads they publish called into question. It's a slippery slope.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Lepidus, the difference is that in a political election people are aware of the ideas of the different sides or at least should be to make their decision. Here you are promoting one side over the other, and no whether you get payed from the other side is not relevant in this argument, because money is not a deciding factor for what is right or what is not. Again this is about having good business Ethics not morals (i'll find a good quote in a sec).
Further, political "advertising" does not exist as other advertising for products or services in a capitalistic state. In politics the party represents a set of goals/ideals/future plans and promises etc. that they are theoretically aiming for to better society as a whole or the community that they will serve (considering we are looking at a democracy). Here the secondary market, undeniably, exists for primarily their own benefit and profiteering.
So again, for you to be neutral you would need to represent both the sellers and the opposers.
here is a good quote for the morality vs. ethics issue:
------------------------quote:
The difference between morals and ethics is essentially one of action. Ethics is defined as "the science of morals." It is so defined because morals have no science - i.e. morality cannot be proven to be "good" by either logic or evidence. The word "good" itself is problematical, since objective values do not actually exist. But, shelving that rather complex issue, a moral principle is something considered to be good in itself; the goodness of an ethical principle, on the other hand, depends on its effects.
This latter definition is obviously unsatisfactory, since it means an action can never be truly judged as ethical until its effects are seen. But, over time, ethics are provable and, more importantly, pragmatic. The media, for instance, have an ethical responsibility to present facts accurately. There is nothing moral about this: it is eminently practical since, if a newspaper does not have the confidence of the reading public, it will not sell. That is why The Rising Sunis doomed to failure.
However, all ethical principles are underlain by moral axioms. In journalism, the axioms are that there is some inherent good in truth and free speech - assumptions that are largely unprovable. But the unprovability of its axioms does not necessarily reduce the power of a system or an institution. In geometry, for example, Euclid's axioms must be accepted as givens; in mathematics, Godel's First Theorem shows that any consistent system of logic contains formulae that are unprovable within the system; and even in science, the fundamental principle of induction (inferring a general law from particular instances) was shown by the philosopher David Hume to be purely an assumption.
Ethics, however, is far more complicated than mathematics or science. It impacts on every aspect of human behaviour, from sex to social organization. The problem in societies like ours is that morals too often substitute for ethics. Despite all proof to the contrary, most people assume that a person who claims moral belief will be ethically above-board. The man who stole one million dollars from the Presbyterian church would never have been able to do it so easily if he wasn't a church elder. And that is the problem: people who consider themselves morally superior often behave as though they are above secular ethical obligations.
[source:Kevin Baldeosingh, http://www.caribscape.com/baldeosingh/philosophy/sober/1998/ethics.html]
________________
And if you check that article its actually a pretty good read. LOL and btw its amazing how much articles/papers/essays etc there are on ethics vs morals, i had no idea, just google it and you'll see what i mean! this one i just picked at random...
EDIT: Oh and your comparison with the nike sweatshops etc is inaccurate in this context. Nike is a "dev company", and therefore THEY deserve equal treatment to other dev companies that engage in the same types of practices, whether its allowing or not allowing; And this is where i see your "slippery slope" metaphor come in.. but the truth is that in this case it is very easy to draw a clear line that will not be crossed and really its a line that needs not to be.
Here is my own analogy of the issue using your example of clothes and the ethics vs. morals argument: If there is a fashion magazine, even one that advertises for nike etc (who may use practices that are not morally right), they then still will not ethically justify ads for knockoffs of Nike. (This is even an extreme case as Nike may still be morally unjust by using their shady practices). The thing is that those ads are completely against the community and industry which that magazine serves, and so it is not only ethically wrong(which is what can justify you action) but morally wrong also, which is the case with us also. If they are advertising for the producers of clothing brand knockoffs then it is the equivalent of supporting that production, as you have an ethical responsibility to your community to represent the industry correctly.
As for what PC Gamer did, I don't think it is dangerous in the least, actually the very opposite: They stood up and took a stand against something that is a very negative to the industry and also something that they personally believed in. The line they did draw is obvious and crisp and they will continue to stay firmly as one of the largest providers on gaming news.
~Dunadurium
"Silly rabbit, WoW's for kids"
************************
The flaw in your argument is that you assume your position (that gold selling is wrong) is everyone's position and believe thus it is logical that we would intentionally refuse to advertise for that section of the industry.
Not everyone agrees with you on that.
Your example casts gold-selling operation as something "against the industry" and illegal. Despite your personal opinions on these, no law has forbidden these companies and they have not been convicted of anything. Many people, including many game companies, see no problem with what these companies do. It is not the popular choice, but it is a large minority of gamers and developers. They are not against the industry.
Thus, to suppress this activity by refusing to allow them to advertise, is a dangerous slope.
Think of it another way. Say a heavily far-right parental group decides they do not like movie x due to its content. They tell newspapers that they should not 'support it' by providing them advertising space. These papers cave.
Another paper rebuffs the pressure, runs the ads, but also provides coverage of the issue (news, editorials, interviews, etc.).
To me, the later paper is providing better coverage.
If we proclaim that gold-selling is wrong and take an ethical or moral stand against them by refusing to provide advertising space, we can never run another article on them again editorially. We've clearly stated our bias and it would be improper to report on that issue anymore. This is an important issue that needs to be followed, explored and discussed. We cannot deny its existence.
As it stands now, advertising has no impact on what I can do. I'd like to keep it that way.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
I can understand your (mmorpg.com's) position Lepidus, I really can.
But when you say "Many people, including many game companies, see no problem with what these companies do," you take it all in a very odd direction. The many that accept / appreciate this, whose wishes (read: policies) are not offended / broken do not in any way make up for everybody else.
I am in no way a law person, and this is the way I see things:
I mean, most sincerely, that you should be able to state that knowingly violating the rules of another entity's intellectual property as a bussiness practice is close enough to objectively unethical that you can refuse it.
With that in place, I'd say the ball was in somebody else's court fully. Although it would be a bundle of work for the dev's to monitor the many services that are on about. As I suggested it, you're not even responsible for caring until somebody with a specific right to tells you to care.
The future: Adellion
Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually
Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants)
Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens)
Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Lepidus, sorry for the unclear nature of my last post, it was really late and i was half falling asleep. Ok, well as for this one, i too disagree with a lot of the things in the above quote. I agree with Kormacs post and would also like to add a bit..
First off, I really, truly think that if all the people who think this is right (the secondary market) would educate themselves on the issue then they would come to change their minds ethically, morally, they may not care much about the industry, instead just about their own entertainment etc. I mean its just so blatantly obvious. It is directly stated in the ToS or EULA of all "non-secondary market games" (games like second life are what i'll consider "secondary market games").
EDIT: actually, I just checked and even in Second Life it states that you may only trade for real $$ through their interface and not through a third party!
now AGAIN, many people may think file sharing etc is MORALLY right to them. and this may indeed be the case of how they view it. Ethically though file sharing impacts that industry and many many music labels are against it. There are some though, even inside the music field that personally support file sharing and even support their music being shared. Does that make it ethically right? NO. And I download music, yes and personally don't think its overly wrong, however if i go to HMV.com or any other music site, I don't expect to see ads for filesharing software because because overall, ethically its wrong to download music.
When it does become a slippery slope is what your doing NOW!! Where do you now draw the line?? even if your only considering it a "grey area" instead of outright breach of contract... do you now allow private servers to be advertised??? apparently not. Some people think private servers are MORALLY right, so why do you not allow those? Whats the difference between those, except that one will pay you and one wont?? Now, I know this sounds a bit accusatory but if you look at it logically its really whats going on, no? Prove me otherwise.
and AGAIN, your analogy is inaccurate in that, what you refer to is not a "supplementary" service of the industry advertised. That parent group example is just like saying that, just because a large group of people (like myself) think WOW is not worthy to be called an MMO, that you should not even support it on this site...are you going to do that? of course not! and I don't hold any illusions of that fact. The problem arises when you have a supplementary service that affects the industry and community, whether some people consider it right or not compared to their OWN morals and values, it is still ethically wrong to advertise. In your example, this would be advertising downloading movies. Now this example is in very strong correlation to what we see here. Many people do download movies, many morally justify it by their own values but it is stull not 100% legal or ethically right. and guess what, most filesharing companies are not "sued into oblivion", simply because there are many other issues to consider other than weather it is against the law or not(which it undoubtedly is), the fact is that the law just does not support easy ways of dealing with issues like this yet! This really does hit the nail on the head i think, and I don't see how you could deny this logic... im open to being proven otherwise of course.
Additionally, refer to Kormac's comment: Just because some company's may support this activity in their games and they DESIGN their games with this in mind, there are still many many more that are adversely affected by the secondary market that you can't just blanket into the category of "well some company's agree with it".
Now about articles vs ads.. No this makes no sense, please elaborate. Just because PC Gamer ruled out secondary market ads that go against EULAs or ToS of games, that does not rule out their ability to report unbiased articles on the secondary market. They could report on games like Second Life with no problem. I just don't see your logic here. They could even have an unslanted article on why some people use the secondary market, while still holding the same view on advertising. I don't see the correlation. There WOULD be the correlation if theirs was a MORAL decision, but its not...you guessed it, its ethical...
One last analogy before i have to go: If you take someone who supports the making of knockoff brandnames, because they like how its cheap and they can still follow the trends of our society without spending their entire savings, goes and buys that fashion magazine from my last post. Is it reasonable for them to expect ads for knockoffs in that magazine???? No of course not. Here is the thing though, and it refers to a few posts back that i think i didn't explain efficiently:It does not mean that the magazine necessarily has announced all out bloody war on the production of knockoff merchandise, simply that they don't actively support it.........! Yes?
So again MORALITY |= ETHICALITY (which is what you seem to be assuming) Thats exactly what I'm saying: You say you don't want it to be a moral issue but thats exactly how you have come to you conclusion (morally).... by saying "well some people support it"- this is a moral argument, as the fact is that it DOES do damage or cause unwanted affects to these games TO SOME DEGREE, which everyone can see..
If we forget about the law for a sec, its just like saying "well some people agree with or support child pornography" (im just using this to illustrate, and i know its affects are much more adverse but just go with me on it) The sad fact is that some may say and actually belive that morally, but if you look at the affects, it is obvious that it is just not ethical to condone or advertise it. This is why it has now become illegal. (remember that it was not always illegal, it just was made that way after it became a large enough issue in todays social structure and culture, and basically how we view and understand sexuality etc). The same thing will happen to the laws in games after enough people are made aware of the facts... Does that mean that the secondary market is legal as it stands now?? Absolutely not, it just means the law is not yet set up to properly enforce such new issues. So a game company connot phisicaly "sue the secondary market into oblivion" no matter how much they are against it. The most the can reasonably do is ban, which they do, but even that requires a lot of resources and effort to sniff out the offenders.
~Dunadurium
"Silly rabbit, WoW's for kids"
************************
Ultimately, if it proven to be illegal, I am sure we'll adjust our policies.
However, I believe the question extends beyond the EULAs into whether those EULAs are themselves acceptable. None of us are qualified to debate the legality. As of today, no court has ruled against this. That's all that matters.
It comes down to something I said before. Once you accept it is not illegal now (which we have), banning advertisements becomes a judgment against them. When we do that, we lose any right for editorial comment or debate. We're bias.
I'd rather give them the chance to advertise and retain the independent right to comment on the issue than do away with it all and pretend such an important issue does not exist.
I understand where you guys are coming from too. I don't want you to think that because we disagree, we do not respect your comments on this issue. It boils down to a desire to leave this large question open to debate and I think allowing them the right of advertisement is a large part of that.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
HMMM really? If you read that paper i linked a few posts back, it talks more or less about this...Is everything that is legal right? Is everything that is illegal wrong? Even Ethically?
I understand what you guys want to avoid but i think its a much slipperier slope if you host these advertisements but have nothing to support the other opinions, maybe apart from this post. For it to be unbiased, you would need to support both (yes you are supporting something if you are taking money from it like this, some may even say "selling out" if you only have one side covered). or you'd need to advertise neither support nor opposition to the issue, in which case you would still have open journalistic reign to report unbiasedly on the two sides, considering you shed equal light on both sides (lol, kinda the definition of unbiased).
******* Now my question goes back to private servers which actually, as you'll see proves my point very well. So my question: Why do you not support the issue of private servers? Is it not a big issue you want to keep open? If yes they why do you not let people advertise them or better yet why don't you host ads for them (again apart from the money issue)? The fact is that they have not yet been proved illegal. Quite the opposite actually: [url]http://tom.insocada.com/2005/11/03/private-wow/[/url]... here is a piece of that article:
"Theres some korean game where a guy wrote a private server, they sued him, but he won, so its now legal to play that game privately."
So what now? are you going to allow people to post private servers or run their ads? The funny thing is that it is the EULA that prohibits reverse engineering the client and running private servers, so the way the laws are for secondary market OR private servers are the same except that with the servers, the affects are a lot more provable to people outside of MMORPGs!
Indeed if you consider the difficulty it would take in explaining how one of these games works to a judge, and then trying to explain what a farmer does to the game and how player achievement works, or even how the subscription model works etc, you can see why the law is so hard to enforce for game companies.
The fact is that people outside of MMOs do not understand all their complexities and they can't be educated in the immense scale of these games under the duration of a simple court trial. Just like that case brought up about the private server. If the court had been MMO players and understood how the game works, then i highly doubt it would have passed the judgement it did. A lot of this may even come from the general negativity surrounding gaming today and the fact that "outsiders" may simply be waiting for a chance to show bad points, and exploit gaming.
If you indeed wish to be able to support this issue though in the future then you need to be unbiased NOW. But i don't see how you are unbiased by running only ads FOR the secondary market. If you are as committed to this as you say, then i would like to see an article with a game company like sigil and putting questions to them like "what is your opinion on the secondary market" or "How does the secondary market influence game economy" etc Then you are creating two sides, because as it stands now you are only supporting this one side. The easier way of course, and even more accurate one, would be to not officially support or oppose either and just be able to report unbiased on both sides.
~Dunadurium
"Silly rabbit, WoW's for kids"
************************
First, there are no logical ads to support the anti-IGE side. If some game company started a campaign, I don't think we'd refuse to run them though (although, that's not my decision).
We run ads from game companies (at a much larger percentage). That's the best we can do realistically.
As to covering the issue. All I can say is: read the site.
We frequently question this issue. Heck, I just finished recording our podcast interview with Brad McQuaid. A good portion was dedicated to this specific issue. What's more, we have other features planned on the topic.
As to history: check any number of Q&As. The question has come up many, many times. We also ran coverage of the Secondary Market panel at AGC, which many people were highly critical of for mixing coverage of the event with Laura's clearly stated opinion on the issue. I labeled that editorial/opinion. You can see it here (http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/298).
The point is, we've been covering the issue and plan to do more in the future. I believe that if we refuse to run their ads, we relinquish the right to discourse. You disagree. Ultimately, I do not think any number of board posts will change that
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
"Silly rabbit, WoW's for kids"
************************
[quote]Originally posted by dunadurium
[b]
Seriously, if you just tell them that you already have your advertising space full, then you can still run unbiased coverage on the issue more "purely". With the ad up there it just seems you guys are indeed slanted toward one side, ya know? For example, say im reading a good article on the site about secondary market, not leaning to either side just giving facts and what not and i look up and see a secondary market ad, doesn't that just defeat the purpose of trying to be unbiased on the issue? LOL anyway... [/color]
[/b][/quote]
What you suggest is still making a judgement.
And really, how is having ads up there slanting us for or against them? We have ads for all sorts of games, some get good reviews and some get bad reviews. It has nothing to do with anything. By the above logic we should have no advertising at all.
Obviously, that's ideal, but common. We need to eat
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios