Originally posted by Kyleran 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.
Not true, most dropped items that farmers introduce into the economy go right into the junk vendors, they do not enter the player market. The net affect gold farmers have on the economy is prices going up, and at some point if the effect is not contained, the only ones who can easily afford the new prices are the ones who bought from the gold farmers.
And for god's sake don't make me puke, WOW's raiding system in other games?
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Well, you can't really completely banned those few who wants to make money out of it... its their way to have the money to buy more mmo's. lol. ...if no one will pay for them then they would definitely end their business..
Geez, if your intent is to get me to give up on this discussion, you guys are close to achieving your goal.
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';
Yes, I can, because the EULA strictly forbids the act. It is against the rules. It is not endorsed nor desirable behavior in the eyes of the game developers, game publishers and the players who agree to the EULA every time they play 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?'.
By my logic, the players who are in favor of gold selling should go play a game in which the EULA does not forbid the practice. Is that an unreasonable expectation?
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.
He has an axe to grind because he disagrees with you about virtual property? The paper is a logical discussion of the fallacies of virtual property, using arguments I think are, at a minimum, as sound or better than any I've heard from the gold-seller camp. And you might want to go look up who Bartle is... I'm not saying everything he says is golden just on his name, but he's been around the genre a while (those of you who quote stuff like Achiever, Explorer, etc. are quoting stuff based on his work).
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.
I'm sorry, I missed the part where I accused ainokeii or ianubisi (or anyone for that matter) of advocating rape. For those who decry my "alarmist" posts, you guys sure "exagerate" a lot. Again, that particular statement was ridiculing the fellow who said something about (paraphrasing) "everyone should do whatever they want for fun."
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.
Again, if I take it away from him in a game where it is endorsed by the game provider, then yeah, I'm infringing on his fun. But not if I ask that he abide by the EULA that he agrees to each time he plays the game.
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.
He's discussing his opinion on virtual property as it pertains to the increasing legal exposure of virtual property in games. I reckon you can find lawyers and consultants who will give their opinion the other way - but those are just opinions, too, and when cases based on these finally go to court, it will be the judges' opinions. I don't want to go into arguing about the "flaws" in his paper, but I'm game if you want to start another thread on it. At the very least, it's interesting.
WoW you guys have sure made an interesting arguement It twist and turns and at times almost derails...
I do not agree with gold buying. I hate bots. It ruined my favorite game, L2. I will not play it because of the problem.
The reason why no one can/will do anything about it is simple.
Players do it because there is no consequence. The accounts are not real, there is no real attachment to any real social consequense. Its not "illegal" Its simply against a set of user rules. (Illegal implies against the LAW) There are no legal problems with it. It doesn't benefit the companies to aggressively enforce it. RMT is such an ingrained part of all MMO's for so long, who is to say what a ingame economy would really look like? Farmers have been selling currency ingame since the begining (UO) No game economy has been untouched by the effects. (well, the good ones anyway)
The gold industry is huge. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Game companies can not stop it. It is to large of a problem.
OP, buying gold ingame is already bannable offence in every MMO. So your question is incorrect to begin with. It already is. Now how do you plan to effectively enforce it? How will you prove who buys and doesn't? You can't. Just because someone recieves a large amount of currency doesn't mean they are "buying" currency. There are a few games my friends gave me money when I joined. Would you ban me? How will you sort those people out in a cost effective manor? Answer: you can't.
The new issue of PC Gamer has an interesting article this month on gold farmers. (Nov 06) check it out.
Real money trades (RMT) should be banned. Both seller and buyer should be banned.
It is bad for game's economy
It is bad sportmanship
It is reason to send spam mails and tells for players
It will give advantage for those who are rich in real life
It is motivation to use and find exploits
It is motivation to write viruses (for example: W32.Mimail.E was used by gold seller to perform a denial of service attack against another gold seller's website)
It is motivation to add hidden keyloggers to 3rd party programs
I agree that some games with really boring and repeative gameplay have "earned" their gold sellers (=bad game design). However, this reasoning is bit contradictionary - why you are playing so boring and badly designed game?
Current trend, where players are able to buy items/gold from game developers service (like SOE's station exchange) are illegal in some countries - or at least they don't have juridistic status yet. These countries have govermental owned gaming monopolies or all money gaming is made illegal. Unlikely gold seller, game developers want to be right side of law and pay their taxes.
"I know I said this was my last post, but you my friend are a idiotic moron." -Shadow4482
If game companies want less gold in the economy, why not do something in-game, like slow down the printing press?
Almost all MMOs are constantly printing their money. The fact that some grab money off the press faster than others is no unfair deal here. If you want to end gold farming/selling, you have to do something other than have money constantly printed. If the devs want to slow down the gold moving into the economy, why not just slow down the press?
Besides, farmers play the game by the same in-game rules everyone else does, they just play for a different reason.
Originally posted by SiddGames Yes, I can, because the EULA strictly forbids the act. It is against the rules. It is not endorsed nor desirable behavior in the eyes of the game developers, game publishers and the players who agree to the EULA every time they play the game.
What EULA are you talking about? You didn't mention any specific game, it's silly to talk in the abstract, then suddemly act like you were talking about a specific game, especially since you haven't even listed the game. Further, even if we ignore the silliness of you inventing a EULA out of thin air, it's IRRELEVANt anyway, since the argument you made and I countered made no mention of game developers and game publishers, or what players have or have not agreed to. I don't think you have a very firm grasp of basic logic.
(those of you who quote stuff like Achiever, Explorer, etc. are quoting stuff based on his work).
I've never liked that classification scheme either, and found the survey for it a bit silly.
He's discussing his opinion on virtual property as it pertains to the increasing legal exposure of virtual property in games.
Yes, it's just some guy's opinion, and not a very well-argued one at that.
I don't want to go into arguing about the "flaws" in his paper, but I'm game if you want to start another thread on it. At the very least, it's interesting.
Then shut up about it. Some guy's vague opinion that he calls a 'white paper' isn't some kind of holy writ, whatever you think of it. If you don't want to discuss the many flaws in his position, don't keep bringing the paper up.
Originally posted by Resetgun It is bad for game's economy
And your evidence for this is...? Or even an argument beyond 'I don't like it, it has some effect on the economy, therefore it has a bad effect on the economy'?
It is bad sportmanship
How, exactly? You declaring it to be doesn't make it so.
It will give advantage for those who are rich in real life
Whatever advantages someone can get by buying gold will be the exact same ones that someone can get by spending large chunks of time. Do you have any justification for why it's good to give an advantage to those with a ton of spare time but not for those with spare money?
Also, what game really gives an advantage to those who are rich? From what I've seen, you're looking at under $1000, and having $1000 for a hobby doesn't mean you're rich, just that you're not financially strapped. People spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on hobbies all the time without being near what I'd consider rich. Concerts at $50 for a ticket and $10 per beer inside the door add up quick, tons of people drop anywhere from a few hundred to a few ten thousand dollars on a fishing boat, anywhere from hundreds to thousands of dollars for a bike, hundreds of dollars for a weekend trip, and more. And none of these are considered the domain of the rich, it's not like we're talking about private jets here. Yes, a few hundred bucks for a hobby is an astounding amount for the stereotypical MMO nerd living in his mothers' basement and working no job or a min wage job, but for people with real jobs it's not anything to write home about.
It is motivation to use and find exploits It is motivation to write viruses (for example: It is motivation to add hidden keyloggers to 3rd party programs
Are you going to provide any kind of argument supporting these claims, or are they just random declarations of 'fact'? And no, the fact that some gold seller might have used a virus to try to shut another one down doesn't cut it.
Current trend, where players are able to buy items/gold from game developers service (like SOE's station exchange) are illegal in some countries - or at least they don't have juridistic status yet.
Which countries specifically? And what does 'juridistic status' mean exactly, does that just mean you think it might be illegal?
Originally posted by Pantastic Games in which gold-buying is rampant are inevitably badly designed games.
I've been saying that for years now...but most people see this as a heretical comment.
People understand that you can design a game to make it harder to farm items and sell them, but there are negative byproducts to some of these designs.
Let's take no-trade, bind on pickup items for example, a concept born to prevent reselling and force linear play. Obviously it prohibits in game trade, not good. Linear play is never good but this seems to be part of the desired effect that some devs think is needed, why I can't fathom. The unrealisitc nature of a no trade effect dampens immersion, especially since it is designed as a means to justify an end result rather than a product of lore.
Just because games can be designed to make it harder to farm items and sell them , doesn't mean players should be given a free pass and not be held accountable for their actions. If I know I can get away with breaking the law, is it ok to do so? Is it justifiable because someone else got away with it?
Individual responsibility is an equal component in curbing gold farming.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it." Brad McQuaid Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc. Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes www.vanguardsoh
Jorev, I always thought the no-trade was created for specific items to keep people from trading 'em to friends since they were quest items or constant-drops from particular mobs.
Either way, I think that gold buying/selling is inevitable. We could all discuss how we have the perfect solution to the problem, but the truth is that every MMORPG faces it to some degree or another. Saying that if you can do it all makes the game worthless is like saying that any car that pollutes is poorly designed. If nothing else, you have pollution from manufacturing.
I will always hold to the theory that if it isnt earned it isnt worth anything in the end. Its the blood sweat and tears you pump into your characters that make them special and make them mean something to you, not the money. And I feel that item malls and pay systems that have the feel of item mall clones are just a way for game publishers to try and milk the cash cow of a "hot new game" til it runs dry or into the the ground. Instead of taking the easy way out, I think the MMO community for the most part would much rather see games that are released when ready and after being well designed. But then in regards to real item/game gold trading and item malss I suppose I will always be an idealist, seeing as how greed is rampant in this industry on both sides, the userbase and the publishers, and not likely to go away any time soon.
Originally posted by Bonzar Either way, I think that gold buying/selling is inevitable. We could all discuss how we have the perfect solution to the problem, but the truth is that every MMORPG faces it to some degree or another.
Saga of Ryzom doesnt seem to in the least bit. If they can take steps or design a game to discourage and or prevent it so can others in the industry.
Originally posted by Jorev People understand that you can design a game to make it harder to farm items and sell them, but there are negative byproducts to some of these designs.
I don't see how. If you design a game so that playing the game is fun, then people will want to play the game. If you design a game so that you have to do unfun stuff to participate in the fun stuff, then people will want to skip the unfun stuff. The design flaw is not with the difficulty of trading or collecting items, the design flaw is that the game requires you to complete something you don't enjoy (often for huge stretches of time) to get to the point of of being able to do something you enjoy. Most MMORPGs are designed so that you need to spend big blocks of time grinding mobs (or mining etc.) in order to make money to do other stuff in the game like PVP or interesting PVE.
Originally posted by Jorev People understand that you can design a game to make it harder to farm items and sell them, but there are negative byproducts to some of these designs.
I don't see how. If you design a game so that playing the game is fun, then people will want to play the game. If you design a game so that you have to do unfun stuff to participate in the fun stuff, then people will want to skip the unfun stuff. The design flaw is not with the difficulty of trading or collecting items, the design flaw is that the game requires you to complete something you don't enjoy (often for huge stretches of time) to get to the point of of being able to do something you enjoy. Most MMORPGs are designed so that you need to spend big blocks of time grinding mobs (or mining etc.) in order to make money to do other stuff in the game like PVP or interesting PVE.
The problem is that everyone has their own definition of what is fun and what is boring. MMOGs have a set of rules, the EULA, and you either abide by it, or go play another game that suits your fancy. No one is forcing you to play a game that you don't think is fun, therefore you are not excused to take shortcuts that violate the EULA.
When you do that, you are now ruining someone elses concept of fun, such as a fair and level playing field where everyone progresses based on merit only.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it." Brad McQuaid Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc. Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes www.vanguardsoh
ianubisi, Jade6, Pantastic, outfctrl. You guys keep repeating yorselves over and over again. When your arguments are countered you come up with something like this: Originally posted by Pantastic Originally posted by SiddGames Yes, I can, because the EULA strictly forbids the act. It is against the rules. It is not endorsed nor desirable behavior in the eyes of the game developers, game publishers and the players who agree to the EULA every time they play the game.
What EULA are you talking about? You didn't mention any specific game, it's silly to talk in the abstract, then suddemly act like you were talking about a specific game, especially since you haven't even listed the game. Further, even if we ignore the silliness of you inventing a EULA out of thin air, it's IRRELEVANt anyway, since the argument you made and I countered made no mention of game developers and game publishers, or what players have or have not agreed to. I don't think you have a very firm grasp of basic logic.
Can't you see this is just you ignoring what he just said on the basis of something completely different? Yes, he did generalize EULAs into one big concept, but I think he DID mean the EULAs that specifically state the usage of 3rd party programs and the selling of game property for real life revenue as "not accepted"/"illegal"/"against game policies" in the game.
Just because someone doesn't specifically state something, doesn't mean you don't have to think about what has previously been mentioned in the debate or what connotations the poster might be implying. Nobody and nothing is 100% certain. And a post that would be 100% foolproof, on target and specific could not be achieved even with the combined knowledge of all the people on the planet.
You red herring the hell out of this debate. Just take a moment to weight things in your mind or on paper, swallow your pride and face reality. A game is not real life. Computer games are escapism at it's finest, or at least were until real life found a horrid way in...
EDIT: Oopsydaisy. I used the word debate didn't I? Do you know why? Because YOU GUYS(Ianubisi, Jade6, Pantastic, outfctrl)are using debating methods... This is a discussion, not a debate. Weigh things out, state facts, don't slam/flame others (like I've just done).
Originally posted by Babbuun This is a discussion, not a debate.
Makes no difference to me what you call it. I'm not here to convince anyone about this issue. I present my opinions and let others decide for themselves how to deal with those opinions.
Incidentally, don't lump any of us who argue on this side of the "discussion" into the same category. Whatever I say, or Pantastic says, or anyone else says belongs to the individual saying it.
Originally posted by Babbuun This is a discussion, not a debate.
Makes no difference to me what you call it. I'm not here to convince anyone about this issue. I present my opinions and let others decide for themselves how to deal with those opinions.
Incidentally, don't lump any of us who argue on this side of the "discussion" into the same category. Whatever I say, or Pantastic says, or anyone else says belongs to the individual saying it.
You use similar tactics to him. The "give me the absolute truth/meaning of life and I'll believe you" line is real fresh. You know no-one can deliver, and you know you can't deliver. Debate tactics. You weren't even trying to spark a discussion but were annulling everything that had been said and was about to be said.
I packed you all in the same lot since all of you use irrational debate tactics. It's a discussion so be constructive. No, I am not being very constructive with these flames, just want discussions instead of competitions of self-prowess. I think the Siddgames was being relatively constructive apart from exaggeration from his frustration at your debate tactics (you got him good there with your trap didn't you?).
What EULA are you talking about? You didn't mention any specific game, it's silly to talk in the abstract, then suddemly act like you were talking about a specific game, especially since you haven't even listed the game. Further, even if we ignore the silliness of you inventing a EULA out of thin air, it's IRRELEVANt anyway, since the argument you made and I countered made no mention of game developers and game publishers, or what players have or have not agreed to. I don't think you have a very firm grasp of basic logic.
Have you even been following the discussion? Every point I've made in this thread has been about gold selling in games where it is prohibited by EULA. Most of the points I'm arguing against are those whose believe (a) breaking the EULA is acceptable because it can't be stopped, (b) breaking the EULA doesn't affect those who don't break the EULA, or (c) who cares about the EULA.
Regarding Bartle's opinions... they are out there. I don't see anything substantial from you opposing his views or exposing the flaws. To quote you: How, exactly? You declaring it to be doesn't make it so.
In any case, I think we've reached steady state on this topic, where nothing further is going to be gained either way.
Comments
I've been saying that for years now...but most people see this as a heretical comment.
The birth of a tyrant.
Not true, most dropped items that farmers introduce into the economy go right into the junk vendors, they do not enter the player market. The net affect gold farmers have on the economy is prices going up, and at some point if the effect is not contained, the only ones who can easily afford the new prices are the ones who bought from the gold farmers.
And for god's sake don't make me puke, WOW's raiding system in other games?
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
How amusing you are.
Only, I said, "I *think* everyone should have that opinion." I didn't demand it, as a tyrant would.
http://www.danbrown.com/
https://gamersloot.net/catalog/index.php
I've been saying that for years now...but most people see this as a heretical comment.
They even made a pretty picture for you also if memory serves
Geez, if your intent is to get me to give up on this discussion, you guys are close to achieving your goal.
Yes, I can, because the EULA strictly forbids the act. It is against the rules. It is not endorsed nor desirable behavior in the eyes of the game developers, game publishers and the players who agree to the EULA every time they play the game.
By my logic, the players who are in favor of gold selling should go play a game in which the EULA does not forbid the practice. Is that an unreasonable expectation?
He has an axe to grind because he disagrees with you about virtual property? The paper is a logical discussion of the fallacies of virtual property, using arguments I think are, at a minimum, as sound or better than any I've heard from the gold-seller camp. And you might want to go look up who Bartle is... I'm not saying everything he says is golden just on his name, but he's been around the genre a while (those of you who quote stuff like Achiever, Explorer, etc. are quoting stuff based on his work).
I'm sorry, I missed the part where I accused ainokeii or ianubisi (or anyone for that matter) of advocating rape. For those who decry my "alarmist" posts, you guys sure "exagerate" a lot. Again, that particular statement was ridiculing the fellow who said something about (paraphrasing) "everyone should do whatever they want for fun."
Again, if I take it away from him in a game where it is endorsed by the game provider, then yeah, I'm infringing on his fun. But not if I ask that he abide by the EULA that he agrees to each time he plays the game.
He's discussing his opinion on virtual property as it pertains to the increasing legal exposure of virtual property in games. I reckon you can find lawyers and consultants who will give their opinion the other way - but those are just opinions, too, and when cases based on these finally go to court, it will be the judges' opinions. I don't want to go into arguing about the "flaws" in his paper, but I'm game if you want to start another thread on it. At the very least, it's interesting.
WoW you guys have sure made an interesting arguement
It twist and turns and at times almost derails...
I do not agree with gold buying. I hate bots. It ruined my favorite game, L2. I will not play it because of the problem.
The reason why no one can/will do anything about it is simple.
Players do it because there is no consequence. The accounts are not real, there is no real attachment to any real social consequense. Its not "illegal" Its simply against a set of user rules. (Illegal implies against the LAW) There are no legal problems with it. It doesn't benefit the companies to aggressively enforce it. RMT is such an ingrained part of all MMO's for so long, who is to say what a ingame economy would really look like? Farmers have been selling currency ingame since the begining (UO) No game economy has been untouched by the effects. (well, the good ones anyway)
The gold industry is huge. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Game companies can not stop it. It is to large of a problem.
OP, buying gold ingame is already bannable offence in every MMO. So your question is incorrect to begin with. It already is. Now how do you plan to effectively enforce it? How will you prove who buys and doesn't? You can't. Just because someone recieves a large amount of currency doesn't mean they are "buying" currency. There are a few games my friends gave me money when I joined. Would you ban me? How will you sort those people out in a cost effective manor? Answer: you can't.
The new issue of PC Gamer has an interesting article this month on gold farmers. (Nov 06) check it out.
Real money trades (RMT) should be banned. Both seller and buyer should be banned.
I agree that some games with really boring and repeative gameplay have "earned" their gold sellers (=bad game design). However, this reasoning is bit contradictionary - why you are playing so boring and badly designed game?
Current trend, where players are able to buy items/gold from game developers service (like SOE's station exchange) are illegal in some countries - or at least they don't have juridistic status yet. These countries have govermental owned gaming monopolies or all money gaming is made illegal. Unlikely gold seller, game developers want to be right side of law and pay their taxes.
"I know I said this was my last post, but you my friend are a idiotic moron." -Shadow4482
Almost all MMOs are constantly printing their money. The fact that some grab money off the press faster than others is no unfair deal here. If you want to end gold farming/selling, you have to do something other than have money constantly printed. If the devs want to slow down the gold moving into the economy, why not just slow down the press?
Besides, farmers play the game by the same in-game rules everyone else does, they just play for a different reason.
What EULA are you talking about? You didn't mention any specific game, it's silly to talk in the abstract, then suddemly act like you were talking about a specific game, especially since you haven't even listed the game. Further, even if we ignore the silliness of you inventing a EULA out of thin air, it's IRRELEVANt anyway, since the argument you made and I countered made no mention of game developers and game publishers, or what players have or have not agreed to. I don't think you have a very firm grasp of basic logic.
I've never liked that classification scheme either, and found the survey for it a bit silly.
Yes, it's just some guy's opinion, and not a very well-argued one at that.
Then shut up about it. Some guy's vague opinion that he calls a 'white paper' isn't some kind of holy writ, whatever you think of it. If you don't want to discuss the many flaws in his position, don't keep bringing the paper up.
Good lord, read the thread before you reply. It's not a bannable offense in EVE or EQ, for example.
And your evidence for this is...? Or even an argument beyond 'I don't like it, it has some effect on the economy, therefore it has a bad effect on the economy'?
How, exactly? You declaring it to be doesn't make it so.
Whatever advantages someone can get by buying gold will be the exact same ones that someone can get by spending large chunks of time. Do you have any justification for why it's good to give an advantage to those with a ton of spare time but not for those with spare money?
Also, what game really gives an advantage to those who are rich? From what I've seen, you're looking at under $1000, and having $1000 for a hobby doesn't mean you're rich, just that you're not financially strapped. People spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on hobbies all the time without being near what I'd consider rich. Concerts at $50 for a ticket and $10 per beer inside the door add up quick, tons of people drop anywhere from a few hundred to a few ten thousand dollars on a fishing boat, anywhere from hundreds to thousands of dollars for a bike, hundreds of dollars for a weekend trip, and more. And none of these are considered the domain of the rich, it's not like we're talking about private jets here. Yes, a few hundred bucks for a hobby is an astounding amount for the stereotypical MMO nerd living in his mothers' basement and working no job or a min wage job, but for people with real jobs it's not anything to write home about.
Are you going to provide any kind of argument supporting these claims, or are they just random declarations of 'fact'? And no, the fact that some gold seller might have used a virus to try to shut another one down doesn't cut it.
Which countries specifically? And what does 'juridistic status' mean exactly, does that just mean you think it might be illegal?
I've been saying that for years now...but most people see this as a heretical comment.
People understand that you can design a game to make it harder to farm items and sell them, but there are negative byproducts to some of these designs.
Let's take no-trade, bind on pickup items for example, a concept born to prevent reselling and force linear play. Obviously it prohibits in game trade, not good. Linear play is never good but this seems to be part of the desired effect that some devs think is needed, why I can't fathom. The unrealisitc nature of a no trade effect dampens immersion, especially since it is designed as a means to justify an end result rather than a product of lore.
Just because games can be designed to make it harder to farm items and sell them , doesn't mean players should be given a free pass and not be held accountable for their actions. If I know I can get away with breaking the law, is it ok to do so? Is it justifiable because someone else got away with it?
Individual responsibility is an equal component in curbing gold farming.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh
Either way, I think that gold buying/selling is inevitable. We could all discuss how we have the perfect solution to the problem, but the truth is that every MMORPG faces it to some degree or another. Saying that if you can do it all makes the game worthless is like saying that any car that pollutes is poorly designed. If nothing else, you have pollution from manufacturing.
I will always hold to the theory that if it isnt earned it isnt worth anything in the end. Its the blood sweat and tears you pump into your characters that make them special and make them mean something to you, not the money. And I feel that item malls and pay systems that have the feel of item mall clones are just a way for game publishers to try and milk the cash cow of a "hot new game" til it runs dry or into the the ground. Instead of taking the easy way out, I think the MMO community for the most part would much rather see games that are released when ready and after being well designed. But then in regards to real item/game gold trading and item malss I suppose I will always be an idealist, seeing as how greed is rampant in this industry on both sides, the userbase and the publishers, and not likely to go away any time soon.
Saga of Ryzom doesnt seem to in the least bit. If they can take steps or design a game to discourage and or prevent it so can others in the industry.
I don't see how. If you design a game so that playing the game is fun, then people will want to play the game. If you design a game so that you have to do unfun stuff to participate in the fun stuff, then people will want to skip the unfun stuff. The design flaw is not with the difficulty of trading or collecting items, the design flaw is that the game requires you to complete something you don't enjoy (often for huge stretches of time) to get to the point of of being able to do something you enjoy. Most MMORPGs are designed so that you need to spend big blocks of time grinding mobs (or mining etc.) in order to make money to do other stuff in the game like PVP or interesting PVE.
I don't see how. If you design a game so that playing the game is fun, then people will want to play the game. If you design a game so that you have to do unfun stuff to participate in the fun stuff, then people will want to skip the unfun stuff. The design flaw is not with the difficulty of trading or collecting items, the design flaw is that the game requires you to complete something you don't enjoy (often for huge stretches of time) to get to the point of of being able to do something you enjoy. Most MMORPGs are designed so that you need to spend big blocks of time grinding mobs (or mining etc.) in order to make money to do other stuff in the game like PVP or interesting PVE.
The problem is that everyone has their own definition of what is fun and what is boring. MMOGs have a set of rules, the EULA, and you either abide by it, or go play another game that suits your fancy. No one is forcing you to play a game that you don't think is fun, therefore you are not excused to take shortcuts that violate the EULA.
When you do that, you are now ruining someone elses concept of fun, such as a fair and level playing field where everyone progresses based on merit only.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh
ianubisi, Jade6, Pantastic, outfctrl. You guys keep repeating yorselves over and over again. When your arguments are countered you come up with something like this:
Originally posted by Pantastic
Originally posted by SiddGames
Yes,
I can, because the EULA strictly forbids the act. It is against the
rules. It is not endorsed nor desirable behavior in the eyes of the
game developers, game publishers and the players who agree to the EULA
every time they play the game.
What EULA are
you talking about? You didn't mention any specific game, it's silly to
talk in the abstract, then suddemly act like you were talking about a
specific game, especially since you haven't even listed the game.
Further, even if we ignore the silliness of you inventing a EULA out of
thin air, it's IRRELEVANt anyway, since the argument you made and I
countered made no mention of game developers and game publishers, or
what players have or have not agreed to. I don't think you have a very
firm grasp of basic logic.
Can't you see this is just you ignoring what he just said on the basis of something completely different? Yes, he did generalize EULAs into one big concept, but I think he DID mean the EULAs that specifically state the usage of 3rd party programs and the selling of game property for real life revenue as "not accepted"/"illegal"/"against game policies" in the game.
Just because someone doesn't specifically state something, doesn't mean you don't have to think about what has previously been mentioned in the debate or what connotations the poster might be implying. Nobody and nothing is 100% certain. And a post that would be 100% foolproof, on target and specific could not be achieved even with the combined knowledge of all the people on the planet.
You red herring the hell out of this debate. Just take a moment to weight things in your mind or on paper, swallow your pride and face reality. A game is not real life. Computer games are escapism at it's finest, or at least were until real life found a horrid way in...
EDIT: Oopsydaisy. I used the word debate didn't I? Do you know why? Because YOU GUYS(Ianubisi, Jade6, Pantastic, outfctrl) are using debating methods... This is a discussion, not a debate. Weigh things out, state facts, don't slam/flame others (like I've just done).
Makes no difference to me what you call it. I'm not here to convince anyone about this issue. I present my opinions and let others decide for themselves how to deal with those opinions.
Incidentally, don't lump any of us who argue on this side of the "discussion" into the same category. Whatever I say, or Pantastic says, or anyone else says belongs to the individual saying it.
Makes no difference to me what you call it. I'm not here to convince anyone about this issue. I present my opinions and let others decide for themselves how to deal with those opinions.
Incidentally, don't lump any of us who argue on this side of the "discussion" into the same category. Whatever I say, or Pantastic says, or anyone else says belongs to the individual saying it.
You use similar tactics to him. The "give me the absolute truth/meaning of life and I'll believe you" line is real fresh. You know no-one can deliver, and you know you can't deliver. Debate tactics. You weren't even trying to spark a discussion but were annulling everything that had been said and was about to be said.
I packed you all in the same lot since all of you use irrational debate tactics. It's a discussion so be constructive. No, I am not being very constructive with these flames, just want discussions instead of competitions of self-prowess. I think the Siddgames was being relatively constructive apart from exaggeration from his frustration at your debate tactics (you got him good there with your trap didn't you?).
Have you even been following the discussion? Every point I've made in this thread has been about gold selling in games where it is prohibited by EULA. Most of the points I'm arguing against are those whose believe (a) breaking the EULA is acceptable because it can't be stopped, (b) breaking the EULA doesn't affect those who don't break the EULA, or (c) who cares about the EULA.
Regarding Bartle's opinions... they are out there. I don't see anything substantial from you opposing his views or exposing the flaws. To quote you: How, exactly? You declaring it to be doesn't make it so.
In any case, I think we've reached steady state on this topic, where nothing further is going to be gained either way.
Cheers, then.