Your point here is valid, but now look at it from my perspective: I am that guy with the low-level deck. I got what I could with what I had, and I wanted to have fun. So you beat me, good for you. Do you think I'm going to challenge you again, knowing you will ALWAYS beat me? I doubt it. Do you think I'm going to spend all day playing against you, knowing full well the odds are not in my favor? I doubt it. Reality is that if you know the odds are against you having fun playing a game, you're not going to play. MMOs lose customers all the time because real, honest players are fed up playing a game in which the cards are ALWAYS stacked up against you, and they are ALWAYS stacked in the favor of the guy who has more money.
Your point is also valid, but slightly short-sighted. Your only options are not to play me or to quit, and neither are mine. You're going to find someone with a similarly constructed deck, and since I am in fact not a total douchebag, so am I. The example was merely to illustrate that my deck is no more right or wrong than yours. Ideally, I would make full use of my uberdeck by challenging another uberdeck, while you would test your skills against someone you might actually beat. I realize other company CEOs may not play Magic this way, but that's no fault of mine.
Unfortunately, it's true that people do quit over this, but clearly not enough of them have, or companies would make more of an effort to curb the practice. Fact is, it just doesn't have as much of an effect as most people would have you believe. There will always be more people who don't ebay than people who do. You will always find someone to play with or against who shares your philosophies; if anything, I'll have to squat at the top and wait for the hordes of "legit" players to reach me.
No, I would never expect you to willingly play against me with those odds, but neither would I expect you to give up the game entirely. We both have equal rights to it, and sooner or later you'll catch up to me, your way.
Originally posted by marleena Your point here is valid, but now look at it from my perspective: I am that guy with the low-level deck. I got what I could with what I had, and I wanted to have fun. So you beat me, good for you. Do you think I'm going to challenge you again, knowing you will ALWAYS beat me? I doubt it. Do you think I'm going to spend all day playing against you, knowing full well the odds are not in my favor? I doubt it. Reality is that if you know the odds are against you having fun playing a game, you're not going to play. MMOs lose customers all the time because real, honest players are fed up playing a game in which the cards are ALWAYS stacked up against you, and they are ALWAYS stacked in the favor of the guy who has more money.
You simply stop challenging people who are out of your league. There are plenty of people in MTGO or MTG who have budget decks...there's lots of action to be had.
Even if you rule out money as the issue...there will be people with more time, people with better guild connections, people with 4 spare computers and superb multitasking skills, etc... There are innumerable ways to gain advantage in MMOGs that are well within the context of the rules. I've had more trouble from these people than I've ever had from "gold farmers".
The cards are always stacked against you if you don't have every advantage in life...winners overcome those obstacles, and losers whine about them.
Originally posted by ainokeii And MMOs are no different. I'm not arguing buying gold doesn't defy the agreement I've made with the company; it sure does. But what we seem to be debating here is whether it's actually wrong, and make no mistake, it's not.
I liked the example, but it's not exactly equal, in the sense that no matter how good gear the other guy gets with his eBay money, he still can't stop me from enjoying instance runs and playing my own game as I like.
Also, I think you are wrong about the agreement; the original topic of this thread was: "Should buying online cash/gold be banned?". Since banning something which is already banned doesn't make much sense, one must assume that the practice is, in what ever context or game the OP is asking the question for, at present completely accepted and in full accordance with the EULA.
Ultima Online has never *not* allowed buying/selling on ebay. In the early days they made statements to the effect that they actually endorsed it. Then later added the official account transfer program (why not they got like $25 bux for doing it).
I remember in 1998 seeing towers around $2500 and the few castles we in the $5000 neighborhood. I actually was buying some old commodore amiga stuff on ebay and thought.. hmm I wonder if people sell UO stuff.
Anyway.. I played the game up until 1992 and even tho for the 5 years I played people could:
1) buy gold
2) buy items
3) buy accounts
4) buy houses
5) buy crafting supplies so anyone could be a gm crafter.
*I* never had a problem making a ton of gold selling stuff I crafted. In fact what finally got me to quit was it was a full time job keeping my vendor stocked.
To me that is not what I consider a ruined economy... I sold my armor/weapons etc.. at very reasonable prices and made what I felt was enough profit. Most people that caught me stocking my vendor said I was one of the only people who kept a vendor stocked.
I made millions of gold a week... 5+ years after launch.
However, I have seen games that are ruined by this type of thing. So it seems to some degree to be based on the game (as to the effect it has). Also there were only a few big sellers back then... now its more or less an industry.
What gets me tho...
Is people that post on forums about how *lame* someone who buys stuff for real money is...
Yet are most likely (and not pointed at any paticular poster here) the same people that I see in a game like daoc using every exploit they can to win...
I would rather they ban all the little idiot exploiters I run across in every MMO I play. Before they worry about people buying gold...items..accounts..
and like I said that "little idiot exploiter* part isn't directed at anyone in this thread... its directed at a play style that imho affects the games for more.
I liked the example, but it's not exactly equal, in the sense that no matter how good gear the other guy gets with his eBay money, he still can't stop me from enjoying instance runs and playing my own game as I like. Also, I think you are wrong about the agreement; the original topic of this thread was: "Should buying online cash/gold be banned?". Since banning something which is already banned doesn't make much sense, one must assume that the practice is, in what ever context or game the OP is asking the question for, at present completely accepted and in full accordance with the EULA.
You're absolutely right; I cannot stop you from having fun, and part of my post was to make just that point. I'm glad we agree.
I'm not sure what you mean about assuming the practice is in accordance with the EULA; farmers don't get banned often, but they do get banned. The practice really is in defiance of the EULA. So I assumed, since we're all clear on whether it's officially an offense, that the OP meant "Do (or should) we all believe ourselves that gold-buying is punishable, regardless of what SOE or anyone else does?" My post was in answer to that question.
Originally posted by ianubisi Originally posted by Xexima Yes, it completely destroys the ingame economy...
I have still, after years of hearing this argument, never heard a single credible line of defense to support this argument.
I strongly recommend those who are engaged in serious debate in this thread to read Bartle's paper, "The Pitfalls of Virtual Property" available here: http://www.themis-group.com/whitepapers.phtml
First, I can't believe anyone denies that this practice alters game economies. Farming causes money to enter the game faster than the developers designed for - the content is designed to be played, not farmed by professionals seeking real world profit. While "natural" inflation exists in games, it is also naive to claim that the influx of money from farming doesn't speed up the process.
Gold farmers are not selling ingame items (one can't sell what does not exist), they are selling their time; time which the company does not and should not own.
Wrong. See Bartle's paper for his counterargument to "selling time and effort."
I know plenty of you stand on principle, decrying the breaking of the rules. Fair enough, they are indeed breaking the rules. But welcome to life. Take a look at what your politicians do, what business owners do, what your boss does or teachers do. Life is not fair. I'm not defending it...just stating the fact. Injustice exists everywhere around you...people are dying every day for a lack of food, so gain some perspective about what's really "fair" in life. Justice is not blind.
I've seen this attitude from a lot of people on various gaming topics and... I just don't get it. What does "life is not fair" have to do with people trying to enjoy a game? Life isn't fair so I should accept games that are not? On the contrary, I'd like to see rules enforced properly in the games I play, not broken just because the nature of the beast allows it.
Originally posted by outfctrl And you my friend are one of the many cry babies that whine CHEATER when you cant have what you want. Just deal with it. Enjoyment is enjoyment, no matter what the activity is.
So if some sicko rapes your sister or murders your father because he enjoys it, you're down with that?
The example about collectible card games is not a good one for this argument, either. Unlike game money, there is a finite set of cards available for purchse. People can't artificially increase the supply of cards because it is fixed. In MMOGs, farmers can and do increase the supply of game money by their actions.
buying gold with cash just kills any game, think of it this way, most people work hard daily to get let's say 1mil gold and then there's that number of people who just buys 1mil gold for money just because they are too lazy to work for it and they got the money to buy ingame money.
Originally posted by SiddGames First, I can't believe anyone denies that this practice alters game economies.
Alters, yes. Ruins? That's a far cry. Please provide some evidence of this "ruination". Every argument I've seen is full of holes.
Originally posted by SiddGames Farming causes money to enter the game faster than the developers designed for - the content is designed to be played, not farmed by professionals seeking real world profit.
The vision of a designer versus the execution of the gamer. Who is right? If you play the game in a way the designer didn't intend, does that mean you are wrong? That is your inference, and I find that faulty.
Originally posted by SiddGames While "natural" inflation exists in games, it is also naive to claim that the influx of money from farming doesn't speed up the process.
It's not naive at all to ask for empirical evidence of this assertion. Economic models of hoarding and splurging have to be brought into play. If a player hoards an enormous amount of gold, that removes it from the economy, causing scarcity and supply-side upward price influence. If a player then releases that hoard on the economy that causes a demand-side downward price influence.
The question at play is this: if the gold farmer was not operational, would the gold still be hoarded and spent? I have yet to see anyone show any data that indicates the answer to this is no. We must presume that if the means for the supplier and buyer of virtual item resale was removed altogether that either:
a) they would no longer play the game b) they would play the game and obtain the gold and spend it
Presuming that a) were in play, then you would remove at least one destabilizing influence. But I have yet to see players ever say "I won't play that game because I can't buy my gold on ebay". They will simply seek out another mechanism to obtain what items they desire.
I have seen far more inflationary damage descend on games because of normal farming techniques (camping a spawn, looting the item, selling it on the in-game market). These constant claims about how gold farming is "ruining" economies are, to my view, far-fetched and apocalyptic.
Originally posted by SiddGames What does "life is not fair" have to do with people trying to enjoy a game? Life isn't fair so I should accept games that are not?
It's the rebuttal to the endless whining of people who cry out it's not fair. Life isn't fair, pal...people will always have advantages you don't have. As I indicated above, it may be money, time, connections, resources, knowledge...and people whine and moan about all of these advantages that others have.
Life isn't fair. One must find one's way of coping with that.
Originally posted by SiddGames So if some sicko rapes your sister or murders your father because he enjoys it, you're down with that?
Wonderful way to exaggerate the issue. Rape and murder are illegal. Buying gold on ebay is not. Please make useful analogies and not over-dramatic alarmist statements.
Originally posted by SiddGames In MMOGs, farmers can and do increase the supply of game money by their actions.
And this is the fundamental flaw of MMOG economies. Money spawns. That's not how it works in real life, which is why I always demand empirical evidence as to why the purchase online of gold "ruins" economies. As far as I can see, and I can see this empirically through direct observation and interrogation of people in the market, the economy is constantly under siege from the upward price influence of money being spawned into the system through the normal play of gamers every day. They kill some mobs, spend their cash, and repeat until the cash continues to accumulate in the system.
---
But leaving all these facts aside, I return to the fundamental premise that overrules the entire discussion:
You will never stop someone with an excess of time and a need for money from bartering with someone with an excess of money and a need for time.
So if some sicko rapes your sister or murders your father because he enjoys it, you're down with that?
There's a certain qualifying phrase that most rational people take for granted in every statement they make, and that phrase is "within reason." If you honestly believe gold-farming can be likened to rape, you don't belong on these or any forums.
I'll answer the rest when I get home; that much crap will keep me from getting my work done.
I've seen this attitude from a lot of people on various gaming topics and... I just don't get it. What does "life is not fair" have to do with people trying to enjoy a game? Life isn't fair so I should accept games that are not? On the contrary, I'd like to see rules enforced properly in the games I play, not broken just because the nature of the beast allows it.
QFE
I JUST got my new system hooked up and had to stop by this post real quick. I could not possibly agree more with the sentiment of this quote. Accepting that "life is not fair" while playing a freakin GAME is absurd. If I wanted to deal with life not being fair, I wouldn't be looking for it in a game.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde
Originally posted by ianubisi The vision of a designer versus the execution of the gamer. Who is right? If you play the game in a way the designer didn't intend, does that mean you are wrong? That is your inference, and I find that faulty.
So the fact that the EULA for a game categorically states that real-world trade/sale of in-game items is forbidden has no bearing on this? I'm sure hunting rifles are made for hunting game and target shooting, but using them to commit harm to other people (using it in a way the designer didn't intend) IS wrong.
The question at play is this: if the gold farmer was not operational, would the gold still be hoarded and spent? I have yet to see anyone show any data that indicates the answer to this is no. We must presume that if the means for the supplier and buyer of virtual item resale was removed altogether that either:
a) they would no longer play the game b) they would play the game and obtain the gold and spend it
Presuming that a) were in play, then you would remove at least one destabilizing influence. But I have yet to see players ever say "I won't play that game because I can't buy my gold on ebay". They will simply seek out another mechanism to obtain what items they desire.
The point you seem to overlook here is that the professional gold farmers are able to put FAR more time in a focused activity into the game. If you removed gold farmers, the gold economy would NOT be the same - players simply cannot farm for the same number of hours as the farmers AND enjoy the actual content of the game as well. Yes, they will seek another mechanism to obtain what they want, but in the absence of out-of-game markets, whatever mechanism they seek will be an in-game process, one that can be governed by the game's developers.
Also, I haven't said they ruin economies, like some suggest. I merely point out that they alter the economies in ways the developers did not intend, which I think you are agreeing to (first quote above)?
It's the rebuttal to the endless whining of people who cry out it's not fair. Life isn't fair, pal...people will always have advantages you don't have. As I indicated above, it may be money, time, connections, resources, knowledge...and people whine and moan about all of these advantages that others have.
I'm sorry you have that attitude about the entertainment you consume. Also, since it doesn't seem like anyone is going to read Bartle's thoughts on the subject, let me paste an example from his paper (he's talking about the idea of virtual ownership, but his example is interesting in this discussion):
From Pitfalls of Virtual Property, by Richard Bartle... Suppose you own a Monopoly set, and invite me and a few friends round for a game. During the course of the game, I land on Boardwalk and buy it. Do I own it? Well yes, in the game, but not in real life because it's your Monopoly set. Let's say another player had Park Place and that I wanted to buy it from them but didn't have enough Monopoly money to do so. What would happen if I paid them $10 of real money for it? Allegations of unfairness and rule-breaking aside, what I've actually bought isn't real-world ownership of the object, because the seller doesn't real-world own it (it's your Monopoly set). Instead, I've bought a service from you: for my $10 of real money, you'll give me the property for free in-game.
So, if you were playing a game of Monopoly with some people, and someone practiced out-of-game buying of in-game favors (which, by the way, is not prohibited by the Monopoly rules as far as I know), you would simply shrug, Life's not fair, and keep playing because that is acceptable to you?
Wonderful way to exaggerate the issue. Rape and murder are illegal. Buying gold on ebay is not. Please make useful analogies and not over-dramatic alarmist statements.
ainokeii said... There's a certain qualifying phrase that most rational people take for granted in every statement they make, and that phrase is "within reason." If you honestly believe gold-farming can be likened to rape, you don't belong on these or any forums.
You both may object to the degree in which I indulged this, but what I've done here is no different from all the uses of "whiners," "crybabies," "carebears" etc. that everyone else uses, just a matter of degree. Additionally, I'm responding directly to this statement:
And you my friend are one of the many cry babies that whine CHEATER when you cant have what you want. Just deal with it. Enjoyment is enjoyment, no matter what the activity is.
I did not get the impression from that person that he was talking about things "within reason." Is it reasonable to AGREE to a EULA each time you enter a game world and then BREAK that EULA whenever you feel like it? Agreeing to the EULA, in fact, is not just an agreement with the game company but is also a covenant, if you will, with your fellow gamers, since they are all agreeing to play by the same rules. In essence, you are saying that your word, your agreement, has no value and that the agreement you have made with the company and with the rule-abiding players has no value. Tying back in to the "alarmist" statement above, if one can't be counted on to abide by the "rules" in a game, how should we expect one to abide by the "rules" in life? Do you guys actually abide by the laws we live under solely because of fear of punishment, or because you are part of the covenant of civilized behavior that we agree to as a society?
And this is the fundamental flaw of MMOG economies.
I didn't think we were arguing the philosophy or science of MMOG design, but rather if it is acceptable for people to use real-world resources to buy in-game resources, especially when it is expressly forbidden by the EULA that those people agree to when they play the game.
But leaving all these facts aside, I return to the fundamental premise that overrules the entire discussion:
You will never stop someone with an excess of time and a need for money from bartering with someone with an excess of money and a need for time.
I think there will always be people with rape and murder in their hearts, but that doesn't mean I think we should just ignore them because we can't stop them. If you want to bring "life is unfair" into our game discussion, I don't see why my real-world analogies are any less valid than yours.
I did not get the impression from that person that he was talking about things "within reason." Is it reasonable to AGREE to a EULA each time you enter a game world and then BREAK that EULA whenever you feel like it? Agreeing to the EULA, in fact, is not just an agreement with the game company but is also a covenant, if you will, with your fellow gamers, since they are all agreeing to play by the same rules. In essence, you are saying that your word, your agreement, has no value and that the agreement you have made with the company and with the rule-abiding players has no value. Tying back in to the "alarmist" statement above, if one can't be counted on to abide by the "rules" in a game, how should we expect one to abide by the "rules" in life? Do you guys actually abide by the laws we live under solely because of fear of punishment, or because you are part of the covenant of civilized behavior that we agree to as a society?
Do you personally follow all the rules of driving? Do you always come to a complete stop at a stop sign? Do you always follow the speed limit? The law says that you must, but I can bet you, you dont, I know I dont. When there is no one around, I may drift thru a stop sign and you dont? Maybe one day you will get busted by a cop, maybe not.
Bleh....The EULA is the same thing. Wake up and smell the roses.
Originally posted by SiddGames I'm sure hunting rifles are made for hunting game and target shooting, but using them to commit harm to other people (using it in a way the designer didn't intend) IS wrong.
Just a piece of advice...don't try to debate a point by comparing bending or breaking the rules of a game to assault with a deadly weapon. Really doesn't drive your point home.
Originally posted by SiddGames Yes, they will seek another mechanism to obtain what they want, but in the absence of out-of-game markets, whatever mechanism they seek will be an in-game process, one that can be governed by the game's developers.
While this is a valid point, I still return to the premise I've repeated time and time again: I have witnessed, empirically, that inflationary pressures are driven heavily by standard in-game mechanisms. The typical argument against virtual item resellers, and the root of this entire thread of conversation we're in at this moment, is that gold farmers "ruin" MMOG economies through inflationary pressures.
I've asked, countless times, for empirical proof about how a farmer does such a thing. I've yet to see this proof in any form, other people people standing on the usual pedestal and preaching how it's "obvious" and "naive to think otherwise."
The point is not whether or not it is cheating or breaking the rules...it absolutely is breaking the rules. The point (of this thread, at least) is that I believe the impact on the economic systems of MMOGs is absolutely negligable in comparison to the normal in-game farming mechanisms that continue to feed currency into an enclosed system without a deflationary valve in play to remove the currency from the system. So all I see is the moral high ground of "it's wrong because..." attached to "...it ruins games by inflation..." when in truth these systems are auto-inflationary and broken to begin with.
Originally posted by SiddGames Also, I haven't said they ruin economies, like some suggest. I merely point out that they alter the economies in ways the developers did not intend, which I think you are agreeing to (first quote above)?
I agreed they alter economies. Other people (in this thread, and in reference to the discussion of this thread, and in countless other threads) have emphatically insisted that it "ruins" economies.
Originally posted by SiddGames So, if you were playing a game of Monopoly with some people, and someone practiced out-of-game buying of in-game favors (which, by the way, is not prohibited by the Monopoly rules as far as I know), you would simply shrug, Life's not fair, and keep playing because that is acceptable to you?
Great example to discuss. Have you ever altered the rules of Monopoly? Did you know that putting money in the center and winning it on "Free Parking" is not an official rule? My friend and I used to play double monopoly...2 gaming boards, all kinds of crazy actions...and we'd hide earned money under the table to bring out when the other guy thought we were finished. Added strategic elements to the game.
The rules are flexible, and we all agree on them in advance when we play together. You can do this when you're only 2 to 8 people. You can't do this in a MMOG...to expect to do this is preposterous. The game mechanics dictate what is possible, and players operate within the game mechanics. If 2 people agree to exchange time and money, nothing in the game mechanics disables this from happening.
There is fundamentally nothing different between my best friend giving me 1000 gold because he's my friend and him giving it to me because I gave him $20. If you want to decry all this activity, you must decry that as well. There is, in my view, no difference at all.
Originally posted by SiddGames You both may object to the degree in which I indulged this, but what I've done here is no different from all the uses of "whiners," "crybabies," "carebears" etc. that everyone else uses, just a matter of degree.
If you cannot see the difference between cheating and murder, then there's nothing more to say on that topic.
Originally posted by SiddGames I didn't think we were arguing the philosophy or science of MMOG design, but rather if it is acceptable for people to use real-world resources to buy in-game resources, especially when it is expressly forbidden by the EULA that those people agree to when they play the game.
They are interwoven in my view, which is a bit of a tangent topic. To summarize the thought, I'll post a paraphrase of another post I made:
Cheaters can only thrive in games with poor design.
Originally posted by SiddGames I think there will always be people with rape and murder in their hearts, but that doesn't mean I think we should just ignore them because we can't stop them. If you want to bring "life is unfair" into our game discussion, I don't see why my real-world analogies are any less valid than yours.
Stop with the rape and murder, already. You make yourself look foolish with this analogy.
Originally posted by Zarcob (last_exile)Should buying online gold/cash be banned? Probably, I've never heard of a mentally stable individual enjoying a game that permitted it. (Ignored it, perhaps, not permitted it).
You know, I'm always happy to slam on EVE (explicitly allows ISK buying) and EQ (has servers allowing item/gold buying) for a wide variety of reasons, but saying that everyone who enjoys either game is not mentally stable seems a bit extreme.
Do you personally follow all the rules of driving? Do you always come to a complete stop at a stop sign? Do you always follow the speed limit? The law says that you must, but I can bet you, you dont, I know I dont. When there is no one around, I may drift thru a stop sign and you dont? Maybe one day you will get busted by a cop, maybe not.
Bleh....The EULA is the same thing. Wake up and smell the roses.
I admit to speeding on a fairly regular basis. But that doesn't make it right. It is also debatable, like the current topic, if my speeding has a negative impact on other drivers; it is not at clear-cut as, say, driving into oncoming traffic. But break the EULA and get caught, lose your account. Break the speed limit too much and lose your license. I agree, same thing, in that regard. But nobody debates that speeding isn't right, or that we should abolish speed limits because they are difficult to 100% enforce.
Originally posted by ianubisi Just a piece of advice...don't try to debate a point by comparing bending or breaking the rules of a game to assault with a deadly weapon. Really doesn't drive your point home.
It's meant to show how absurd some of the counterarguments are, such as "life's not fair, so why make a game that is?"
While this is a valid point, I still return to the premise I've repeated time and time again: I have witnessed, empirically, that inflationary pressures are driven heavily by standard in-game mechanisms. The typical argument against virtual item resellers, and the root of this entire thread of conversation we're in at this moment, is that gold farmers "ruin" MMOG economies through inflationary pressures.
I've asked, countless times, for empirical proof about how a farmer does such a thing. I've yet to see this proof in any form, other people people standing on the usual pedestal and preaching how it's "obvious" and "naive to think otherwise."
You know, I somehow doubt that you have "witnessed, empirically" what you are claiming. I'd like to see your hypothesis and testing procedures of these inflationary pressures, with and without the presence of gold farmers. I can support my argument with the same kind of statement: I've witnessed, empirically, that inflationary pressures are greatly exacerbated by gold farmers in games that allow their proliferation.
So all I see is the moral high ground of "it's wrong because..." attached to "...it ruins games by inflation..." when in truth these systems are auto-inflationary and broken to begin with.
That's part of the problem. Yes, the games are inflationary to begin with. However, when developers put money sinks into a game to help balance it (and they are there from the outset, whether or not they are modified over time), they can't balance both the "normal" players and the "gold buying" players. If a developer puts in money sinks to drain off the wealth generated by power gamers and gold farmers, it essentially devalues what little money is generated by the casual players - yes, ruining their experience if handled that way. The presence of an active out-of-game market makes the developers job's harder.
The rules are flexible, and we all agree on them in advance when we play together.
Thank you - that is exactly it! When MMOG players agree to a EULA, they are agreeing on certain rules that they will all be playing under. I don't see why extending this to an MMOG is preposterous. Again, nothing in the Monopoly rules disables the exchange of real money, but it is not considered "reasonable" (there's that word again) by most people.
There is fundamentally nothing different between my best friend giving me 1000 gold because he's my friend and him giving it to me because I gave him $20. If you want to decry all this activity, you must decry that as well. There is, in my view, no difference at all.
The difference is in how your friend acquired the 1000 gold. If that is the product of his effort over a year in a game and he wants to give it to you... that is not the same as if the 1000 gold is the product of 4 people playing the game 24x7 for 2 days to earn that gold. That 1000 gold entered the game at a different rate, and in particular, at a different rate than the rest of the game economy was designed to handle. The fact that the gold is changing hands isn't the issue (at least, not to me) -- it's how fast that gold entered the game.
If you cannot see the difference between cheating and murder, then there's nothing more to say on that topic.
Stop with the rape and murder, already. You make yourself look foolish with this analogy.
I assure you, I can see the difference between cheating and murder. But it seems as if you cannot see the difference between a game and life ("life is unfair, therefore games should be too")?
Not wanting to repeat what has already been said, I'll make a different arguement. Gold farmers are benefit to the game economy. Particularly in crafting heavy games like Lineage 2 (but even in WOW) where you need a large quantity of farmed materials, farmers make these materials more readily available to everyone.
Even weapons and armor can be much more available to everyone because farmers pick these drops up along with their 20 silver per kill. So it sort of offsets things a bit... sure in WOW a farmer may make 20 gold a day from drops, but the objects he picks up and sells actually drives down the price of them in the open market by making them more available. And the gold he gets for selling them isn't new wealth, he's just redistribuing it from a player who already has gold to one who just bought some. No inflation.
Sure, the 20 gold he farmed out of the game has an upward inflationary pressure on the game economy, but it is at least partially mitigated by the additional availability of dropped weapons, armor and crafting materials.
Personally, I feel the most harmful thing to the health of MMORPG's is permitting those people with tons of free time unlimited access to the game. As a working family guy, I find it hard to put in more than 3-4 hours a day. (which is excessive in my book). Some people play 12 hours a day and can out farm me by a factor of 4. I've never felt this was fair.... just something I had to put up with... but buying game gold even's the odds a bit more. (which I realize those who spent all that time absolutely hate)
Here's an idea, how about a game where players are restricted to playing no more than 2 hours a day (call it the casual player's server) then everyone could be more equal because they couldn't exceed 2 hrs a day playing. It solves the problem rather neatly I think.. but few would like it. So let them buy their gold instead.
WOW has taken the right approach. Players cannot buy the best gear, it has to be earned by the player. Sure, those who buy gold can level up a bit faster, or maybe twink more, but in the end.. .you have to play the game to get the best rewards. More games should incorporate that into their design.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You know, we're kind of focused on the technical aspects of this debate. Really, what the question boils down to and you've alluded to already, is if gold farmers ruin the game for other players. Really, if a group of players answer Yes to that, then that part of the debate is over. Arguing about the effects of gold farming on a game's economy and inflation is just a technical red herring... if the PERCEPTION of the playerbase is that their game experience is being negatively affected by gold farming, than that perception is a fact. We're talking entertainment here. People are playing to be entertained and they are stating that gold farming is taking away from that entertainment. All the technical and philosophical arguments don't change that. The poll at the start of this thread is about 3:1 against gold farming... as much as 75% of players reading this thread have their play experience impacted by the very existence of gold farmers, independent of their actual effect in the game.
Originally posted by Kyleran Here's an idea, how about a game where players are restricted to playing no more than 2 hours a day (call it the casual player's server) then everyone could be more equal because they couldn't exceed 2 hrs a day playing. It solves the problem rather neatly I think.. but few would like it.
I've thought about that before. I think we'll eventually see games just like that in the niche market, once it develops. Truly, casual players don't care about buying gold and all that, because, by definition, they are casual.
WOW has taken the right approach. Players cannot buy the best gear, it has to be earned by the player. Sure, those who buy gold can level up a bit faster, or maybe twink more, but in the end.. .you have to play the game to get the best rewards. More games should incorporate that into their design.
I agree, I like the "bind on acquire" idea for high quality items, as way to reduce twinking/reselling.
Originally posted by SiddGames You know, we're kind of focused on the technical aspects of this debate. Really, what the question boils down to and you've alluded to already, is if gold farmers ruin the game for other players. Really, if a group of players answer Yes to that, then that part of the debate is over. Arguing about the effects of gold farming on a game's economy and inflation is just a technical red herring... if the PERCEPTION of the playerbase is that their game experience is being negatively affected by gold farming, than that perception is a fact. We're talking entertainment here. People are playing to be entertained and they are stating that gold farming is taking away from that entertainment. All the technical and philosophical arguments don't change that. The poll at the start of this thread is about 3:1 against gold farming... as much as 75% of players reading this thread have their play experience impacted by the very existence of gold farmers, independent of their actual effect in the game.
That's exactly the way a feel about the hole debate.. as of right now WoW.EU is over ridden with farm botts and its become almost impossible to compete with these hunters.
Originally posted by SiddGames You know, we're kind of focused on the technical aspects of this debate. Really, what the question boils down to and you've alluded to already, is if gold farmers ruin the game for other players. Really, if a group of players answer Yes to that, then that part of the debate is over.
No it's not, since there's clearly a large group of players voting that buying gold improves the game for them by paying money for gold. And there's clearly another large group of players who don't care, since you get them in every thread. You can't just say 'some people don't like it, therefore it ruins the game'; by that logic, actually removing gold selling from a game would also ruin the game, since a group of players would answer Yes to the question 'would removing gold farming ruin the game for you?'.
if the PERCEPTION of the playerbase is that their game experience is being negatively affected by gold farming, than that perception is a fact.
A couple of loudmouths on MMORPG.com are not the same thing as the playerbase of a game with hundreds of thousands or millions of players, the fact that you have a perception doesn't mean that 'the playerbase' does. If the playerbase really thought that, wouldn't the playerbase just not buy gold?
You guys are incredibly, incredibly unconvincing in your arguments - you mix silly arguments like the above, really whacked arguments like the comparison to murder and rape, and various accusations and personal attacks (like the post saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a cheater). I'm sure it makes you and the half-dozen or so people posting in agreement with you happy, but it's not going to change anyone's mind.
Seems like most of what I was going to say was said while I was gone. Oh well.
[Also, since it doesn't seem like anyone is going to read Bartle's thoughts on the subject, let me paste an example from his paper]
I read it, from start to finish. And it was tripe. The guy clearly had an axe to grind before he even began his work, a cardinal sin for any paper that claims to be professional. You can bring up whatever parts of it you wish, but I imagine they'll all meet the same fate as that absurd Monopoly analogy. I won't waste my time beginning the debate on it, and I encourage everyone to skip it if they haven't done so already.
[You both may object to the degree in which I indulged this, but what I've done here is no different from all the uses of "whiners," "crybabies," "carebears" etc. that everyone else uses, just a matter of degree.]
It absolutely is a matter of degree, which is why you're making an ass of yourself. Me calling you a whiner does not equate with your accusation that I or ianubisi advocate rape. Same goes for in-game offenses. If someone steals your WoW account and permakills your character, and Blizzard turns a blind eye, then we'll talk. Until then, do try to be reasonable.
[Accepting that "life is not fair" while playing a freakin GAME is absurd. If I wanted to deal with life not being fair, I wouldn't be looking for it in a game.]
This is the elephant in the room, it seems. I figured someone on my side of the fence would bring it up first. The heart of the issue is that when someone brings real-life capitalism into a game, it makes the escapists nervous. Well, I hate to break it to you, but a game is just as much a part of life as anything else you may do. That's the correlation, that's why we keep bringing up the "life's not fair thing," because games ARE life, even if they look different.
Let me make it clear that I myself do not buy gold. Hell, I don't even play MMOs that much anymore. But I call BS when I smell it. Don't come to the gold-buyer talking about how he's infringing on your fun, because for him, fun may be skipping the grind and getting straight to the boss fight. And if you take that away from him, you're everything you claim to despise.
Originally posted by ainokeii I read it, from start to finish. And it was tripe. The guy clearly had an axe to grind before he even began his work, a cardinal sin for any paper that claims to be professional.
I agree, there's clearly no research behind it (there's no numbers on anything), it's clearly not trying to examine the situation objectively, and his arguments are filled with flaws, opinion, and unsupported statements. The fact that some guy called his opinion a "white paper" doesn't make it fact.
Let me make it clear that I myself do not buy gold. Hell, I don't even play MMOs that much anymore.
Personally, if I feel that a game is so boring that I don't want to play it, I'll stop paying for it rather than spend money to not play the game by buying gold or items. Games in which gold-buying is rampant are inevitably badly designed games.
Originally posted by SiddGames if the PERCEPTION of the playerbase is that their game experience is being negatively affected by gold farming, than that perception is a fact.
Yes, that's why politicians can get away with all those ridiculous lies and steer public opinion any way they want; most people don't bother to think, so appearances will always be more important than substance. Luckily some go for facts though; otherwise we would still be living in the dark ages since the most basic requirement of any and all science has always been to look beyond appearances. What worries me are the consequences of decisions based on appearances; for example, in the middle ages, witches were burned for being "evil". Sadly, they were the only ones who knew a lot about herbal medicines, so it was like burning all doctors today. The public got what they wanted, but at what price?
Since the OP asked for my opinion, I will give it:
I think anyone who buys or sells gold or items on eBay or similar sites should be banned. A week for the first offense, permanently if it happens again. I think farmers ruin games -- if not totally, they make them far less enjoyable to those who do not have RL deep pockets, and probably even for those that do.
As another poster brought up: when I'm playing a game of Monopoly with some friends, who wins should not depend on how much RL money we have, but on *how well we play the game.* Sure, we may make some house rules for playing Monopoly, but they all use elements from within the game, which DO NOT provide any one person with an advantage.
I despise people who buy or sell gold or other items outside of the game. I think they're cheaters. I don't want them in the games I play. I try to avoid associating with them as much as possible. I think everyone should have that opinion.
Comments
Your point is also valid, but slightly short-sighted. Your only options are not to play me or to quit, and neither are mine. You're going to find someone with a similarly constructed deck, and since I am in fact not a total douchebag, so am I. The example was merely to illustrate that my deck is no more right or wrong than yours. Ideally, I would make full use of my uberdeck by challenging another uberdeck, while you would test your skills against someone you might actually beat. I realize other company CEOs may not play Magic this way, but that's no fault of mine.
Unfortunately, it's true that people do quit over this, but clearly not enough of them have, or companies would make more of an effort to curb the practice. Fact is, it just doesn't have as much of an effect as most people would have you believe. There will always be more people who don't ebay than people who do. You will always find someone to play with or against who shares your philosophies; if anything, I'll have to squat at the top and wait for the hordes of "legit" players to reach me.
No, I would never expect you to willingly play against me with those odds, but neither would I expect you to give up the game entirely. We both have equal rights to it, and sooner or later you'll catch up to me, your way.
You simply stop challenging people who are out of your league. There are plenty of people in MTGO or MTG who have budget decks...there's lots of action to be had.
Even if you rule out money as the issue...there will be people with more time, people with better guild connections, people with 4 spare computers and superb multitasking skills, etc... There are innumerable ways to gain advantage in MMOGs that are well within the context of the rules. I've had more trouble from these people than I've ever had from "gold farmers".
The cards are always stacked against you if you don't have every advantage in life...winners overcome those obstacles, and losers whine about them.
If you mean integrity , you are wrong and if you mean $ , you are also incorrect.
Unaware of the Jestor?
http://about.me/JestorRodo/
Friends enjoy his classic Vblog - https://www.facebook.com/GoodOldReliableNathan
I liked the example, but it's not exactly equal, in the sense that no matter how good gear the other guy gets with his eBay money, he still can't stop me from enjoying instance runs and playing my own game as I like.
Also, I think you are wrong about the agreement; the original topic of this thread was: "Should buying online cash/gold be banned?". Since banning something which is already banned doesn't make much sense, one must assume that the practice is, in what ever context or game the OP is asking the question for, at present completely accepted and in full accordance with the EULA.
Ultima Online has never *not* allowed buying/selling on ebay. In the early days they made statements to the effect that they actually endorsed it. Then later added the official account transfer program (why not they got like $25 bux for doing it).
I remember in 1998 seeing towers around $2500 and the few castles we in the $5000 neighborhood. I actually was buying some old commodore amiga stuff on ebay and thought.. hmm I wonder if people sell UO stuff.
Anyway.. I played the game up until 1992 and even tho for the 5 years I played people could:
1) buy gold
2) buy items
3) buy accounts
4) buy houses
5) buy crafting supplies so anyone could be a gm crafter.
*I* never had a problem making a ton of gold selling stuff I crafted. In fact what finally got me to quit was it was a full time job keeping my vendor stocked.
To me that is not what I consider a ruined economy... I sold my armor/weapons etc.. at very reasonable prices and made what I felt was enough profit. Most people that caught me stocking my vendor said I was one of the only people who kept a vendor stocked.
I made millions of gold a week... 5+ years after launch.
However, I have seen games that are ruined by this type of thing. So it seems to some degree to be based on the game (as to the effect it has). Also there were only a few big sellers back then... now its more or less an industry.
What gets me tho...
Is people that post on forums about how *lame* someone who buys stuff for real money is...
Yet are most likely (and not pointed at any paticular poster here) the same people that I see in a game like daoc using every exploit they can to win...
I would rather they ban all the little idiot exploiters I run across in every MMO I play. Before they worry about people buying gold...items..accounts..
and like I said that "little idiot exploiter* part isn't directed at anyone in this thread... its directed at a play style that imho affects the games for more.
You're absolutely right; I cannot stop you from having fun, and part of my post was to make just that point. I'm glad we agree.
I'm not sure what you mean about assuming the practice is in accordance with the EULA; farmers don't get banned often, but they do get banned. The practice really is in defiance of the EULA. So I assumed, since we're all clear on whether it's officially an offense, that the OP meant "Do (or should) we all believe ourselves that gold-buying is punishable, regardless of what SOE or anyone else does?" My post was in answer to that question.
I strongly recommend those who are engaged in serious debate in this thread to read Bartle's paper, "The Pitfalls of Virtual Property" available here: http://www.themis-group.com/whitepapers.phtml
First, I can't believe anyone denies that this practice alters game economies. Farming causes money to enter the game faster than the developers designed for - the content is designed to be played, not farmed by professionals seeking real world profit. While "natural" inflation exists in games, it is also naive to claim that the influx of money from farming doesn't speed up the process.
Wrong. See Bartle's paper for his counterargument to "selling time and effort."
I've seen this attitude from a lot of people on various gaming topics and... I just don't get it. What does "life is not fair" have to do with people trying to enjoy a game? Life isn't fair so I should accept games that are not? On the contrary, I'd like to see rules enforced properly in the games I play, not broken just because the nature of the beast allows it.
So if some sicko rapes your sister or murders your father because he enjoys it, you're down with that?
The example about collectible card games is not a good one for this argument, either. Unlike game money, there is a finite set of cards available for purchse. People can't artificially increase the supply of cards because it is fixed. In MMOGs, farmers can and do increase the supply of game money by their actions.
Alters, yes. Ruins? That's a far cry. Please provide some evidence of this "ruination". Every argument I've seen is full of holes.
The vision of a designer versus the execution of the gamer. Who is right? If you play the game in a way the designer didn't intend, does that mean you are wrong? That is your inference, and I find that faulty.
It's not naive at all to ask for empirical evidence of this assertion. Economic models of hoarding and splurging have to be brought into play. If a player hoards an enormous amount of gold, that removes it from the economy, causing scarcity and supply-side upward price influence. If a player then releases that hoard on the economy that causes a demand-side downward price influence.
The question at play is this: if the gold farmer was not operational, would the gold still be hoarded and spent? I have yet to see anyone show any data that indicates the answer to this is no. We must presume that if the means for the supplier and buyer of virtual item resale was removed altogether that either:
a) they would no longer play the game
b) they would play the game and obtain the gold and spend it
Presuming that a) were in play, then you would remove at least one destabilizing influence. But I have yet to see players ever say "I won't play that game because I can't buy my gold on ebay". They will simply seek out another mechanism to obtain what items they desire.
I have seen far more inflationary damage descend on games because of normal farming techniques (camping a spawn, looting the item, selling it on the in-game market). These constant claims about how gold farming is "ruining" economies are, to my view, far-fetched and apocalyptic.
It's the rebuttal to the endless whining of people who cry out it's not fair. Life isn't fair, pal...people will always have advantages you don't have. As I indicated above, it may be money, time, connections, resources, knowledge...and people whine and moan about all of these advantages that others have.
Life isn't fair. One must find one's way of coping with that.
Wonderful way to exaggerate the issue. Rape and murder are illegal. Buying gold on ebay is not. Please make useful analogies and not over-dramatic alarmist statements.
And this is the fundamental flaw of MMOG economies. Money spawns. That's not how it works in real life, which is why I always demand empirical evidence as to why the purchase online of gold "ruins" economies. As far as I can see, and I can see this empirically through direct observation and interrogation of people in the market, the economy is constantly under siege from the upward price influence of money being spawned into the system through the normal play of gamers every day. They kill some mobs, spend their cash, and repeat until the cash continues to accumulate in the system.
---
But leaving all these facts aside, I return to the fundamental premise that overrules the entire discussion:
You will never stop someone with an excess of time and a need for money from bartering with someone with an excess of money and a need for time.
There's a certain qualifying phrase that most rational people take for granted in every statement they make, and that phrase is "within reason." If you honestly believe gold-farming can be likened to rape, you don't belong on these or any forums.
I'll answer the rest when I get home; that much crap will keep me from getting my work done.
QFE
I JUST got my new system hooked up and had to stop by this post real quick. I could not possibly agree more with the sentiment of this quote. Accepting that "life is not fair" while playing a freakin GAME is absurd. If I wanted to deal with life not being fair, I wouldn't be looking for it in a game.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
So the fact that the EULA for a game categorically states that real-world trade/sale of in-game items is forbidden has no bearing on this? I'm sure hunting rifles are made for hunting game and target shooting, but using them to commit harm to other people (using it in a way the designer didn't intend) IS wrong.
The point you seem to overlook here is that the professional gold farmers are able to put FAR more time in a focused activity into the game. If you removed gold farmers, the gold economy would NOT be the same - players simply cannot farm for the same number of hours as the farmers AND enjoy the actual content of the game as well. Yes, they will seek another mechanism to obtain what they want, but in the absence of out-of-game markets, whatever mechanism they seek will be an in-game process, one that can be governed by the game's developers.
Also, I haven't said they ruin economies, like some suggest. I merely point out that they alter the economies in ways the developers did not intend, which I think you are agreeing to (first quote above)?
I'm sorry you have that attitude about the entertainment you consume. Also, since it doesn't seem like anyone is going to read Bartle's thoughts on the subject, let me paste an example from his paper (he's talking about the idea of virtual ownership, but his example is interesting in this discussion):
So, if you were playing a game of Monopoly with some people, and someone practiced out-of-game buying of in-game favors (which, by the way, is not prohibited by the Monopoly rules as far as I know), you would simply shrug, Life's not fair, and keep playing because that is acceptable to you?
You both may object to the degree in which I indulged this, but what I've done here is no different from all the uses of "whiners," "crybabies," "carebears" etc. that everyone else uses, just a matter of degree. Additionally, I'm responding directly to this statement:
I did not get the impression from that person that he was talking about things "within reason." Is it reasonable to AGREE to a EULA each time you enter a game world and then BREAK that EULA whenever you feel like it? Agreeing to the EULA, in fact, is not just an agreement with the game company but is also a covenant, if you will, with your fellow gamers, since they are all agreeing to play by the same rules. In essence, you are saying that your word, your agreement, has no value and that the agreement you have made with the company and with the rule-abiding players has no value. Tying back in to the "alarmist" statement above, if one can't be counted on to abide by the "rules" in a game, how should we expect one to abide by the "rules" in life? Do you guys actually abide by the laws we live under solely because of fear of punishment, or because you are part of the covenant of civilized behavior that we agree to as a society?
I didn't think we were arguing the philosophy or science of MMOG design, but rather if it is acceptable for people to use real-world resources to buy in-game resources, especially when it is expressly forbidden by the EULA that those people agree to when they play the game.
I think there will always be people with rape and murder in their hearts, but that doesn't mean I think we should just ignore them because we can't stop them. If you want to bring "life is unfair" into our game discussion, I don't see why my real-world analogies are any less valid than yours.
Just a piece of advice...don't try to debate a point by comparing bending or breaking the rules of a game to assault with a deadly weapon. Really doesn't drive your point home.
While this is a valid point, I still return to the premise I've repeated time and time again: I have witnessed, empirically, that inflationary pressures are driven heavily by standard in-game mechanisms. The typical argument against virtual item resellers, and the root of this entire thread of conversation we're in at this moment, is that gold farmers "ruin" MMOG economies through inflationary pressures.
I've asked, countless times, for empirical proof about how a farmer does such a thing. I've yet to see this proof in any form, other people people standing on the usual pedestal and preaching how it's "obvious" and "naive to think otherwise."
The point is not whether or not it is cheating or breaking the rules...it absolutely is breaking the rules. The point (of this thread, at least) is that I believe the impact on the economic systems of MMOGs is absolutely negligable in comparison to the normal in-game farming mechanisms that continue to feed currency into an enclosed system without a deflationary valve in play to remove the currency from the system. So all I see is the moral high ground of "it's wrong because..." attached to "...it ruins games by inflation..." when in truth these systems are auto-inflationary and broken to begin with.
I agreed they alter economies. Other people (in this thread, and in reference to the discussion of this thread, and in countless other threads) have emphatically insisted that it "ruins" economies.
Great example to discuss. Have you ever altered the rules of Monopoly? Did you know that putting money in the center and winning it on "Free Parking" is not an official rule? My friend and I used to play double monopoly...2 gaming boards, all kinds of crazy actions...and we'd hide earned money under the table to bring out when the other guy thought we were finished. Added strategic elements to the game.
The rules are flexible, and we all agree on them in advance when we play together. You can do this when you're only 2 to 8 people. You can't do this in a MMOG...to expect to do this is preposterous. The game mechanics dictate what is possible, and players operate within the game mechanics. If 2 people agree to exchange time and money, nothing in the game mechanics disables this from happening.
There is fundamentally nothing different between my best friend giving me 1000 gold because he's my friend and him giving it to me because I gave him $20. If you want to decry all this activity, you must decry that as well. There is, in my view, no difference at all.
If you cannot see the difference between cheating and murder, then there's nothing more to say on that topic.
They are interwoven in my view, which is a bit of a tangent topic. To summarize the thought, I'll post a paraphrase of another post I made:
Cheaters can only thrive in games with poor design.
Stop with the rape and murder, already. You make yourself look foolish with this analogy.
You know, I'm always happy to slam on EVE (explicitly allows ISK buying) and EQ (has servers allowing item/gold buying) for a wide variety of reasons, but saying that everyone who enjoys either game is not mentally stable seems a bit extreme.
I admit to speeding on a fairly regular basis. But that doesn't make it right. It is also debatable, like the current topic, if my speeding has a negative impact on other drivers; it is not at clear-cut as, say, driving into oncoming traffic. But break the EULA and get caught, lose your account. Break the speed limit too much and lose your license. I agree, same thing, in that regard. But nobody debates that speeding isn't right, or that we should abolish speed limits because they are difficult to 100% enforce.
It's meant to show how absurd some of the counterarguments are, such as "life's not fair, so why make a game that is?"
You know, I somehow doubt that you have "witnessed, empirically" what you are claiming. I'd like to see your hypothesis and testing procedures of these inflationary pressures, with and without the presence of gold farmers. I can support my argument with the same kind of statement: I've witnessed, empirically, that inflationary pressures are greatly exacerbated by gold farmers in games that allow their proliferation.
That's part of the problem. Yes, the games are inflationary to begin with. However, when developers put money sinks into a game to help balance it (and they are there from the outset, whether or not they are modified over time), they can't balance both the "normal" players and the "gold buying" players. If a developer puts in money sinks to drain off the wealth generated by power gamers and gold farmers, it essentially devalues what little money is generated by the casual players - yes, ruining their experience if handled that way. The presence of an active out-of-game market makes the developers job's harder.
Thank you - that is exactly it! When MMOG players agree to a EULA, they are agreeing on certain rules that they will all be playing under. I don't see why extending this to an MMOG is preposterous. Again, nothing in the Monopoly rules disables the exchange of real money, but it is not considered "reasonable" (there's that word again) by most people.
The difference is in how your friend acquired the 1000 gold. If that is the product of his effort over a year in a game and he wants to give it to you... that is not the same as if the 1000 gold is the product of 4 people playing the game 24x7 for 2 days to earn that gold. That 1000 gold entered the game at a different rate, and in particular, at a different rate than the rest of the game economy was designed to handle. The fact that the gold is changing hands isn't the issue (at least, not to me) -- it's how fast that gold entered the game.
I assure you, I can see the difference between cheating and murder. But it seems as if you cannot see the difference between a game and life ("life is unfair, therefore games should be too")?
Not wanting to repeat what has already been said, I'll make a different arguement. Gold farmers are benefit to the game economy. Particularly in crafting heavy games like Lineage 2 (but even in WOW) where you need a large quantity of farmed materials, farmers make these materials more readily available to everyone.
Even weapons and armor can be much more available to everyone because farmers pick these drops up along with their 20 silver per kill. So it sort of offsets things a bit... sure in WOW a farmer may make 20 gold a day from drops, but the objects he picks up and sells actually drives down the price of them in the open market by making them more available. And the gold he gets for selling them isn't new wealth, he's just redistribuing it from a player who already has gold to one who just bought some. No inflation.
Sure, the 20 gold he farmed out of the game has an upward inflationary pressure on the game economy, but it is at least partially mitigated by the additional availability of dropped weapons, armor and crafting materials.
Personally, I feel the most harmful thing to the health of MMORPG's is permitting those people with tons of free time unlimited access to the game. As a working family guy, I find it hard to put in more than 3-4 hours a day. (which is excessive in my book). Some people play 12 hours a day and can out farm me by a factor of 4. I've never felt this was fair.... just something I had to put up with... but buying game gold even's the odds a bit more. (which I realize those who spent all that time absolutely hate)
Here's an idea, how about a game where players are restricted to playing no more than 2 hours a day (call it the casual player's server) then everyone could be more equal because they couldn't exceed 2 hrs a day playing. It solves the problem rather neatly I think.. but few would like it. So let them buy their gold instead.
WOW has taken the right approach. Players cannot buy the best gear, it has to be earned by the player. Sure, those who buy gold can level up a bit faster, or maybe twink more, but in the end.. .you have to play the game to get the best rewards. More games should incorporate that into their design.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You know, we're kind of focused on the technical aspects of this debate. Really, what the question boils down to and you've alluded to already, is if gold farmers ruin the game for other players. Really, if a group of players answer Yes to that, then that part of the debate is over. Arguing about the effects of gold farming on a game's economy and inflation is just a technical red herring... if the PERCEPTION of the playerbase is that their game experience is being negatively affected by gold farming, than that perception is a fact. We're talking entertainment here. People are playing to be entertained and they are stating that gold farming is taking away from that entertainment. All the technical and philosophical arguments don't change that. The poll at the start of this thread is about 3:1 against gold farming... as much as 75% of players reading this thread have their play experience impacted by the very existence of gold farmers, independent of their actual effect in the game.
I've thought about that before. I think we'll eventually see games just like that in the niche market, once it develops. Truly, casual players don't care about buying gold and all that, because, by definition, they are casual.
I agree, I like the "bind on acquire" idea for high quality items, as way to reduce twinking/reselling.
No it's not, since there's clearly a large group of players voting that buying gold improves the game for them by paying money for gold. And there's clearly another large group of players who don't care, since you get them in every thread. You can't just say 'some people don't like it, therefore it ruins the game'; by that logic, actually removing gold selling from a game would also ruin the game, since a group of players would answer Yes to the question 'would removing gold farming ruin the game for you?'.
A couple of loudmouths on MMORPG.com are not the same thing as the playerbase of a game with hundreds of thousands or millions of players, the fact that you have a perception doesn't mean that 'the playerbase' does. If the playerbase really thought that, wouldn't the playerbase just not buy gold?
You guys are incredibly, incredibly unconvincing in your arguments - you mix silly arguments like the above, really whacked arguments like the comparison to murder and rape, and various accusations and personal attacks (like the post saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a cheater). I'm sure it makes you and the half-dozen or so people posting in agreement with you happy, but it's not going to change anyone's mind.
Seems like most of what I was going to say was said while I was gone. Oh well.
[Also, since it doesn't seem like anyone is going to read Bartle's
thoughts on the subject, let me paste an example from his paper]
I read it, from start to finish. And it was tripe. The guy clearly had an axe to grind before he even began his work, a cardinal sin for any paper that claims to be professional. You can bring up whatever parts of it you wish, but I imagine they'll all meet the same fate as that absurd Monopoly analogy. I won't waste my time beginning the debate on it, and I encourage everyone to skip it if they haven't done so already.
[You both may object to the degree in which I indulged this, but what
I've done here is no different from all the uses of "whiners,"
"crybabies," "carebears" etc. that everyone else uses, just a matter of
degree.]
It absolutely is a matter of degree, which is why you're making an ass of yourself. Me calling you a whiner does not equate with your accusation that I or ianubisi advocate rape. Same goes for in-game offenses. If someone steals your WoW account and permakills your character, and Blizzard turns a blind eye, then we'll talk. Until then, do try to be reasonable.
[Accepting that "life is not fair" while playing a freakin GAME is
absurd. If I wanted to deal with life not being fair, I wouldn't be
looking for it in a game.]
This is the elephant in the room, it seems. I figured someone on my side of the fence would bring it up first. The heart of the issue is that when someone brings real-life capitalism into a game, it makes the escapists nervous. Well, I hate to break it to you, but a game is just as much a part of life as anything else you may do. That's the correlation, that's why we keep bringing up the "life's not fair thing," because games ARE life, even if they look different.
Let me make it clear that I myself do not buy gold. Hell, I don't even play MMOs that much anymore. But I call BS when I smell it. Don't come to the gold-buyer talking about how he's infringing on your fun, because for him, fun may be skipping the grind and getting straight to the boss fight. And if you take that away from him, you're everything you claim to despise.
I agree, there's clearly no research behind it (there's no numbers on anything), it's clearly not trying to examine the situation objectively, and his arguments are filled with flaws, opinion, and unsupported statements. The fact that some guy called his opinion a "white paper" doesn't make it fact.
Personally, if I feel that a game is so boring that I don't want to play it, I'll stop paying for it rather than spend money to not play the game by buying gold or items. Games in which gold-buying is rampant are inevitably badly designed games.
Since the OP asked for my opinion, I will give it:
I think anyone who buys or sells gold or items on eBay or similar sites should be banned. A week for the first offense, permanently if it happens again. I think farmers ruin games -- if not totally, they make them far less enjoyable to those who do not have RL deep pockets, and probably even for those that do.
As another poster brought up: when I'm playing a game of Monopoly with some friends, who wins should not depend on how much RL money we have, but on *how well we play the game.* Sure, we may make some house rules for playing Monopoly, but they all use elements from within the game, which DO NOT provide any one person with an advantage.
I despise people who buy or sell gold or other items outside of the game. I think they're cheaters. I don't want them in the games I play. I try to avoid associating with them as much as possible. I think everyone should have that opinion.