Originally posted by Babbuun 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:
True, the post was somewhat of a red herring, but your accusation was no less so. Heed your own advice and stay on topic.
Our points are not being countered, as far as I've seen. In fact, they're not often even acknowledged, as you so deftly show. Here's a concise list to help you stay on target (and guys, feel free to add to it):
--No one is arguing that RMT is not in clear violation of the EULA. That has been conceded by everyone from the start. Let it go. We're arguing about whether it's actually bad; that is, whether such a clause should even be included in the EULA in the first place.
--Scathing testimony and hackneyed "white papers" aside, we haven't seen any evidence that RMT has a significant impact on game economies, at least, no more than other flaws in the closed MMO economy have caused. Maybe you believe you have, but we believe we haven't, and until we do, we have no reason to change our minds. No amount of your personal experience will be able to change our own.
--It's true, Jorev, that I can play something else if the grind of MMO X doesn't appeal to me; but if MMO X has some great questing opportunities or some great PvP, and I've got the money to burn, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to experience them (again, EULA aside) without suffering through the deliberate time-sinks designed exclusively to keep me from reaching them sooner. Those systems are designed to keep players trudging along for years on end, and I don't play that way. I rarely stick with an MMO longer than a month or two. It will always come back to you and I seeing different parts of the same game as the fun parts, and each of us doing what's necessary to reach them.
Lastly, this is indeed a debate, not a discussion. There are two pretty clear-cut sides, each of whom is attempting to best the other by pointing out logical flaws, offering arguments and counter-arguments. We will then, unsurprisingly, continue to use debating methods (re: actual arguments), because anything else is simply idiotic prattle.
Originally posted by SiddGames 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.
Like I said before, I have no desire to go through an exhaustive, point-by-point discussion of this guy's paper. You're free to bring up whatever individual part of it you want.
I will at least agree, though, that the topic's quickly approaching a stalemate.
well wether its banned or not, it will be done anyway through ebay or some other company , the best thing to do imho is to make a market server like eq2 did where you can sell/buy things SECURELY and be able to have said game devs be able to track the transactions.
Originally posted by ainokeii Originally posted by Babbuun 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:
True, the post was somewhat of a red herring, but your accusation was no less so. Heed your own advice and stay on topic.
Our points are not being countered, as far as I've seen. In fact, they're not often even acknowledged, as you so deftly show. Here's a concise list to help you stay on target (and guys, feel free to add to it):
--No one is arguing that RMT is not in clear violation of the EULA. That has been conceded by everyone from the start. Let it go. We're arguing about whether it's actually bad; that is, whether such a clause should even be included in the EULA in the first place.
--Scathing testimony and hackneyed "white papers" aside, we haven't seen any evidence that RMT has a significant impact on game economies, at least, no more than other flaws in the closed MMO economy have caused. Maybe you believe you have, but we believe we haven't, and until we do, we have no reason to change our minds. No amount of your personal experience will be able to change our own.
--It's true, Jorev, that I can play something else if the grind of MMO X doesn't appeal to me; but if MMO X has some great questing opportunities or some great PvP, and I've got the money to burn, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to experience them (again, EULA aside) without suffering through the deliberate time-sinks designed exclusively to keep me from reaching them sooner. Those systems are designed to keep players trudging along for years on end, and I don't play that way. I rarely stick with an MMO longer than a month or two. It will always come back to you and I seeing different parts of the same game as the fun parts, and each of us doing what's necessary to reach them.
Lastly, this is indeed a debate, not a discussion. There are two pretty clear-cut sides, each of whom is attempting to best the other by pointing out logical flaws, offering arguments and counter-arguments. We will then, unsurprisingly, continue to use debating methods (re: actual arguments), because anything else is simply idiotic prattle.
1. It's very easy being a hypocrite and writing utter bollocks in a convincing tone. That's what I did.
2. The EULA thing was still being brought up by certain individuals after countless extremely valid arguments about it being the ruleset by which you abide when playing a game. Also the thing that people seem to be ignoring is the fact that life/games have rules, and you SHOULD abide by them. What you're trying to bring in is the argument of whether these rules suck or not? Start a new thread about that, this discussion is about "SHOULD BUYING ONLINE CASH/GOLD BE BANNED?" and I say hell yeah. It's against the rules of the game.
3. The fact that RMT creates avatars that take away from immersion, crowd certain zones and are highly likely to use third party programs is already enough to arouse anger towards them. Add to this the "altering/ruining the economy" argument and you've got yourself a whole lot of RMT cons.
4. I still don't get the goddarned "how can they be ruining the economy?" thing. Come on. Face reality already. Do you really think certain MMO economies would be as they are now if it weren't for farmers? Do you really think they could be WORSE without farmers?
5. I've got the money to burn, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to experience them (again, EULA aside) without suffering through the deliberate time-sinks designed exclusively to keep me from reaching them sooner. This discussion is not about all aspects of RMT. You're bringing in other more easily defendable aspects of RMT. This has nothing to do with powerlevelling services. This is about buying online gold. You can powerlevel all you want for all I care, so if you don't have enough time, powerlevel. That is not taking away from my game experience since you'd have wasted the exact same time levelling anyways. Just don't buy that goddamn gold.
6. Debates are more about personal verbal and intellectual talent than about the subject matter at hand (or at least that's what they've unfortunately been converted into in the academic world). What I want to see is people actually taking into account what others say, not just thinking about how they're going to bring the other side down.
7. And I'm sorry if you feel left out, I'll add you to the list of people with unconstructive posts the next time I use it. "Scathing testimony and hackneyed "white papers"", you really did go through a lot of trouble to back up those comments. "No amount of your personal experience will be able to change our own", hooray for shoving your fingers in your ears and yelling "blah blah blah".
8. Again I'm acting like a COMPLETE AND UTTER hypocrite but I'm trying to prove a point here. "No amount of your personal experience will be able to change our own", I think I'll go cry in my room since you made me feel so small.
1. It's very easy being a hypocrite and writing utter bollocks in a convincing tone. That's what I did. To what end? You accused me of a lot, but you can't say I've ever wasted anyone's time trying to be clever.
2. The EULA thing was still being brought up by certain individuals after countless extremely valid arguments about it being the ruleset by which you abide when playing a game. Also the thing that people seem to be ignoring is the fact that life/games have rules, and you SHOULD abide by them. What you're trying to bring in is the argument of whether these rules suck or not? Start a new thread about that, this discussion is about "SHOULD BUYING ONLINE CASH/GOLD BE BANNED?" and I say hell yeah. It's against the rules of the game. According to the EULA, it's already banned; so the topic would logically have to be "is the current rule right?" I'm not bringing anything in; far as I'm concerned, this is what we were talking about to begin with.
3. The fact that RMT creates avatars that take away from immersion, crowd certain zones and are highly likely to use third party programs is already enough to arouse anger towards them. Add to this the "altering/ruining the economy" argument and you've got yourself a whole lot of RMT cons. Clearly you're not interested in actually reading my posts (which makes your philosophies on debating pretty amusing). I said I've never seen any of this make a significant impact. I admit freely I've seen all the things you're referring to (most notoriously in Lineage 2), but never to the point where I felt like I or anyone I was playing with was affected.
4. I still don't get the goddarned "how can they be ruining the economy?" thing. Come on. Face reality already. Do you really think certain MMO economies would be as they are now if it weren't for farmers? Do you really think they could be WORSE without farmers? Yeah, I'm sure they would be different, and hell, they might even be a little bit better... for some people. For others, it would make the game, and even the genre, unplayable.
5. I've got the money to burn, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to experience them (again, EULA aside) without suffering through the deliberate time-sinks designed exclusively to keep me from reaching them sooner. This discussion is not about all aspects of RMT. You're bringing in other more easily defendable aspects of RMT. Uh... that's the idea, yes. Thanks for noticing. This has nothing to do with powerlevelling services. This is about buying online gold. You can powerlevel all you want for all I care, so if you don't have enough time, powerlevel. That is not taking away from my game experience since you'd have wasted the exact same time levelling anyways. Just don't buy that goddamn gold. I wasn't talking about powerleveling services. I think gold-buying is a little silly, but I think getting someone to level your character is just plain absurd (though I would still never try to stop it). I'm still talking about buying gold, to avoid the time-sink that is grinding for money, actually halting the leveling/questing process to go farm good "loot mobs" or do outdated quests or whatever. Taking time out from the fun stuff to do work. This stuff is included just to slow me down and make me pay a few more monthly installments.
6. Debates are more about personal verbal and intellectual talent than about the subject matter at hand (or at least that's what they've unfortunately been converted into in the academic world). What I want to see is people actually taking into account what others say, not just thinking about how they're going to bring the other side down. See above. Also, this is entirely about the subject matter for me; I don't buy gold myself, and am therefore not personally invested in the issue. I just think it's interesting, having been on both sides of the fence at one point or another.
7. And I'm sorry if you feel left out, I'll add you to the list of people with unconstructive posts the next time I use it. Cool, thanks. "Scathing testimony and hackneyed "white papers"", you really did go through a lot of trouble to back up those comments. My lack of a reply to said paper is explained in a previous post. "No amount of your personal experience will be able to change our own", hooray for shoving your fingers in your ears and yelling "blah blah blah". Clearly, you find my personal experience equally unconvincing-- I'm sure you can complete this argument on your own.
8. Again I'm acting like a COMPLETE AND UTTER hypocrite but I'm trying to prove a point here. That no one should resort to hypocrisy? Har "No amount of your personal experience will be able to change our own", I think I'll go cry in my room since you made me feel so small. That wasn't my intent, but you gotta do what you gotta do, I guess.
1. It's very easy being a hypocrite and writing utter bollocks in a convincing tone. That's what I did. To what end? You accused me of a lot, but you can't say I've ever wasted anyone's time trying to be clever.
Actually, I will admit that's exactly what I'm doing right in that sentence. lolz
Originally posted by Jorev 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.
What are you talking about? Seriously, read the post that you're responding to and respond to it or quote the specific part of my post that leads you to believe that I am playing a game I don't think is fun, am being forced to do so, or am violating the EULA of a game. You guys need to stop with the absurd accusations, it just makes people think you're insane, it doesn't actually cause them to think you're making sense.
If I'm talking about game design and why I think that rampant gold-selling highlights an underlying game flaw rather than being a problem itself (which I was), it doesn't make any sense to rant on about EULAs and accuse me of violating them.
Originally posted by SiddGames 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.
No, the post I quoted explicitly said that it was not looking at technical aspects of the debate, and was looking at whether gold farmers ruin the entertainment of the game for other players. I pointed out that the exact argument you made about how including RMT in games ruins it for some players would also apply to removing RMT from games, and that therefore your argument was flawed. Jumping around shouting "EULA EULA" doesn't change that; the argument you made was flawed, and trying to shift and pretend like it had something to do with the EULA doesn't mean that it did.
BTW, does this really mean that you have no problems at all with people selling gold and items for real money as long as the EULA for a game allows it; that if the makers of your current MMORPG decided to change the EULA so that it was not forbidden, you would not consider the game ruined, the economy would no longer be ruined, and your fun would not be impacted? If the fact that RMT involves an EULA is your only objection to it, then you should be fine with that.
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.
You said "I don't want to go into arguing about the 'flaws' in his paper..." so do you or don't you? One minute you're saying that you don't want to discuss the flaws in his paper, then later you're acting like I'm doing something wrong by not discussing the flaws. Make up your mind.
Originally posted by Babbuun 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.
If someone makes an arugument based on the fact that behaviour is not liked by some people and doesn't mention EULAs at all, and someone else points out that their argument applies equally well to another situation, bringing up EULAs is just a red herring. You might want to learn some basic logic and reasoning skills.
Originally posted by Babbuun 4. I still don't get the goddarned "how can they be ruining the economy?" thing. Come on. Face reality already. Do you really think certain MMO economies would be as they are now if it weren't for farmers? Do you really think they could be WORSE without farmers?
What 'certain MMO economies', how are they now, what makes their current state bad, how did you determine that their current state was caused by farmers, and why would it be inconceivable for them to be worse? All I ever see from any of you is this kind of ranting; you just ramble on about how economies are 'ruined' and how anyone who doesn't agree just isn't facing reality yet you can't even say what's wrong with the economies or how you determined that it was due to RMT and not some other cause.
To Pantastic: Behaviour not liked by some people doesn't mention EULAs -> pointed out to apply equally well to another situation -> EULA = red herring -> learn logic skills. Ok got it.
When talking about games nowadays, there's always an EULA. The EULA is what you agree to abide by. Mentioning the EULA is like quoting the constitution of a game(although it has grown to be nothing but a pause between installing and playing a game due to lack of respect for the games industry via piracy and exploitation of game worlds/hacking).
And in case you hadn't noticed there was a certain amount of cynicism applied to my flame on flame posts.
To ainokeii: I did read your previous posts. I thought you had some nice points from time to time. But I do think Siddgames made a pretty decent comeback to your flaming the writer of the article. That's why I think your backup was lacking on the remarks. You also try to make me look like the bad guy in your latest posts. Nice touch. Claiming I don't care about your experience is insulting, why bother being on internet forums if I don't care about anyone else's thoughts? I'm as empathic as a dolphin on weed and as objective as buddha. The reason I don't really care about powerlevelling is that it doesn't alter the game world in almost any way. As much time would have been spent levelling if you'd done it yourself, and you're probably not taking a lot away from others while having it done for you. I'd never do it, but I don't think it's as big a problem as gold/itemfarming.
Another method you use is the impartial card. You claim it doesn't really concern you and you've never affected by gold farmers and then you go on to semi-flame other people's views. Doesn't seem right to me. After all I'm a moralist preacher of the EULAs.
Originally posted by Pantastic I pointed out that the exact argument you made about how including RMT in games ruins it for some players would also apply to removing RMT from games, and that therefore your argument was flawed. Jumping around shouting "EULA EULA" doesn't change that; the argument you made was flawed, and trying to shift and pretend like it had something to do with the EULA doesn't mean that it did.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not farming negatively impacts a game (something which your side has failed to prove as well as ours), the EULA has plenty to do with the discussion.
Suppose we have a hypothetical game: a FFA open PVP game. Some players use a 3rd-party radar hack to track enemy players and some don't. The players who use the radar have a significant advantage over those that don't; the use of the radar lets them avoid unfavorable encounters twice as often as radar-less players, and it allows them to launch encounter-winning first-strikes against radar less players twice as often. All players agree, the use of radar significantly alters the core PVP gameplay.
Are you in favor of or oppose the use of that 3rd-party radar in this hypothetical game? Does your opinion depend on whether or not the EULA forbids the use of the radar tool or if the EULA allows open 3rd-party mods in the game?
BTW, does this really mean that you have no problems at all with people selling gold and items for real money as long as the EULA for a game allows it;
That is correct: if the EULA allows for the gold/item selling, then I don't have any problem with players who engage in such activity.
that if the makers of your current MMORPG decided to change the EULA so that it was not forbidden, you would not consider the game ruined, the economy would no longer be ruined, and your fun would not be impacted?
Not quite. Changing the EULA, or any other part of a game for that matter, could change a player's "fun factor", be that nerfing a player's main class, altering play mechanisms, or a variety of other things - including what is acceptable behavior as described in the EULA. The game company is well within their right to do so - it's their game. The player, if he is so inclined, has the right to quit playing the game if he no longer has fun.
A converse example for you: if a EULA allowed RMT and then the company changed it to forbid it, I would likewise expect players who favored RMT and whose "fun factor" was now diminished by the EULA change to leave the game if the company was deaf to their protests.
In summary, there are a variety of ways game company decisions affect players' fun in the game. What is allowed and forbidden by EULA is one of those. If gold buyers can't have fun in a game without buying gold to "get them to the fun part" faster, it seems reasonable to me that those players would quit the un-fun game and go find one that was more fun for them.
And before someone on the other sides makes the same statement about the non-gold-buyers - again, the common rules by which players AGREE to abide is layed out in the EULA - it is unreasonable to expect those who abide by the rules to just leave when rule-breakers diminish their fun.
I'm trying to think of a parallel example in another field. How about sports? Non-performance-enhancing athletes suffer in comparison to those who cheat and use performance enhancing drugs. Do we say to the "clean" athletes: You are whiners, go find another sport to compete in if you don't like the cheaters in this one? No, we don't.
ainokeii said... --No one is arguing that RMT is not in clear violation of the EULA. That has been conceded by everyone from the start. Let it go. We're arguing about whether it's actually bad; that is, whether such a clause should even be included in the EULA in the first place.
Sorry, that's not what I thought we were arguing about. I can see how the OP's question could be interpreted that way. If you, ianubisi, Pantastic, ctrlwlf and whoever else all agree that RMT is in clear violation of EULA's that spell it out, then I will move on to the discussion about whether or not RMT is bad in a game.
To spell that out real quick like: I agree to the superficial argument that bad game design can lead to RMT and that RMT in and of itself is not to blame for a game's ills. However, as everyone here does seem to agree, different people have fun different ways and I think it is unrealistic to expect a single game to satisfy everyone. Since you can't satisfy everyone, everyone would (logically) end up playing different games - whatever best matches their idea of fun. RMT would be in some games and would not be in others, since people seem divided over whether or not it is bad.
Originally posted by SiddGames Leaving aside the question of whether or not farming negatively impacts a game (something which your side has failed to prove as well as ours)
This is called Burden of Proof. If you claim something exists, it is your responsibility to prove that it exists against the rebuttals of those that refute its existence. Since the claim was made: "farmers ruin MMOGs" the burden lies in those supporting this argument.
If you know the first thing about debate you understand this.
Originally posted by SiddGames If you, ianubisi, Pantastic, ctrlwlf and whoever else all agree that RMT is in clear violation of EULA's that spell it out, then I will move on to the discussion about whether or not RMT is bad in a game.
Stop lumping us together. You deal with each individual on their own merits. I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me. Got it?
I have stated in all cases where this argument has come up, that I have no qualms whatsoever with companies banning users who violate the EULA. This is a bannable offense, and I think MMOG companies are well within their rights to execute on their agreements.
But I also see this as a finger in the dyke. It is, and I'll repeat what I've typed in this post before, as intevitable as the tide. I believe that companies operating in resistance to this behavior are misguided, and their efforts would be better spent in either modifying their game design to dampen the effect or find a way to incorporate it safely. But you see, that's simply my perspective and I have no objection at all to companies that prefer to "fight the good fight" until the bitter end.
Personally, I believe companies operating in resistance to this behavior are often pursuing ulterior motives, though I have also frequently stated that I firmly believe they want people to play the game within the rules they've developed.
Whether or not farmers/powerlevelers/gold buyers ruin MMOs is irrelevent really. It'a all about whether a company thinks they ruin their game and thus decide to make those actions against the ToS.
Oh and all messageboard lawyers and debate queens need to burn in hell.
Just my $.02 but I think that if a particular game becomes a victim of heavy buying/selling of in-game resources for RL currency then that game has set the time-sink bar too high.
Originally posted by ianubisi This is called Burden of Proof. If you claim something exists, it is your responsibility to prove that it exists against the rebuttals of those that refute its existence. Since the claim was made: "farmers ruin MMOGs" the burden lies in those supporting this argument.
If you know the first thing about debate you understand this.
I never claimed to be educated in the rules of debate, nor have I agreed to some debate EULA out there that contains those rules But i jest.
Stop lumping us together. You deal with each individual on their own merits. I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me. Got it?
Got it. Likewise, I am not someone who has stated "farmers ruin MMOGs" so stop tagging that position on me as well. I believe my statements were that they violate EULA (which I am no longer arguing about) and that some players perceive gold-farming to have a negative impact on their entertainment.
To reiterate that last point, and provide the proof you require, I just have to state this: gold-farming makes me enjoy a game less. There, I have proven my point. You see, we're talking about players' perceptions of having fun - I think we all agree that different people have fun different ways. We agree fun is subjective, yes? Like opinions, nobody's perception of fun is right or wrong. Like a person's feelings, they are factual in that person's experience. If I punch someone in the nose and they say it pisses them off, I can't say, "No it doesn't" or "Prove it" -- if he's pissed, he's pissed, there's no way to debate it or make his feeling less valid.
Does gold-farming have a concrete negative effect on a game? I'll bend the knee on this one and say I don't know for a fact that it does. But does it ruin the fun some people get from playing a game? Yes, it does - you can see those people on any game forums where the topic comes up.
Originally posted by SiddGames Leaving aside the question of whether or not farming negatively impacts a game (something which your side has failed to prove as well as ours),
Your side is the one making the claim, thus they're the ones with the burden of proof, this is just a basic fact of rational discussion. It's not like that part of the discussion is even at the point where any kind of evidence is really relevant, your side refuses to even clarify basic information about the oft-repeated claim, such as exactly what the negative impact is and how you determine it to be caused by RMT instead of by other factors. Repeating a claim doesn't make it true.
Suppose... Some players use a 3rd-party radar hack to track enemy players and some don't... All players agree, the use of radar significantly alters the core PVP gameplay.
Your analogy is not relevant to the discussin; in your analogy, players are using something that changes basic game mechanics, giving them an ability unavailible to those that don't, while players buying gold are not gaining any new ability, they're just having someone else do a grind for them. Plus your analogy includes an assumption that all players agree that the use of hack significantly alters gameplay, but whether RMT significantly alters gameplay is an item under discussion. The questions about the analogy therefore don't really have anything to do with the discussion at hand, and answering them would not be productive, especially since I don't have a simple yes or no answer.
Let's go with an analogy directly related to the issue at hand: Let's say that there's a game, and you have the Mace of Mediocracy, then run into 6 different people with the Sword of Superliciousness, which does twice the damage. You have only the mace because you don't have a lot of spare time and am not willing to buy one with real money. The first of these people got the sword by buying gold, then purchasing the sword on the market. The second got the sword by spending a week of his copious free time just grinding for cash, then purchased the sword on the market. The third got the sword by having his two buddies play on his account to help him grind out the cash over a week. The fourth got the sword because he helped a firend move IRL, and his friend gave him the sword for helping out. The fifth got the sword because he has a higher-level alt who farmed the gold for the sword in 2 hours. And the sixth got it by actually going and doing whatever quest/boss/dungeon/crafting you do to get the sword in the first place.
For me, whether I enjoy the game or not does not depend at all on which of the six swordsmen I encounter in the game wether fighting with or against them (especially since I don't have any way to tell the difference), and it doesn't really matter what the EULA says about each individual case. For you, and the other 'ban gold buying' posters, it seems that each case is quite different, and for you in particular it appears that whether the actions are against the EULA or not is also quite significant. In general, the 'ban gold buyers' crowd seems to think that 1 is very bad, EULA or not, yet 3 is not bad at all even though it's generally against EULAs more than 1. 2, 5, and 6 are considered equivalent, even though the degree of 'earning it' varies a lot by my standards, and 4 is a grey area of the sort that people tend to try to avoid discussing at all.
That is correct: if the EULA allows for the gold/item selling, then I don't have any problem with players who engage in such activity.
That's not reall what I asked; I asked if you had a problem with the activity, not if you had a problem with players who engage in it. Your later answers dance all around the issue too, where you talk about the fact that people can leave games or that changing a EULA might change someone's fun. Very simply, if the only difference between 2 games (or 2 server rulesets in the same game, like in EQ) is that one allows RMT in the EULA and the other doesn't, would you enjoy the two games a different amount? (FYI, for me the answer is 'no, I would enjoy them the same').
And before someone on the other sides makes the same statement about the non-gold-buyers
This is probably part of why these discussions go in so many directions, you think of yourself and people like you as 'non-gold-buyers', so presumably you consider the people arguing against you as 'gold-buyers' or at least 'pro-gold-buyers'. But I am also a non-gold-buyer (and IIRC everyone else who's posted in disagreement with you, though I'm not going to search) ; as I've said in this very thread, I have never bought gold/items and would quit a game if I felt a significant desire to. This seems to color a lot of your answers, and certainly colors a lot of the answers on your side of the argument.
Sorry, that's not what I thought we were arguing about. I can see how the OP's question could be interpreted that way. If you, ianubisi, Pantastic, ctrlwlf and whoever else all agree that RMT is in clear violation of EULA's that spell it out, then I will move on to the discussion about whether or not RMT is bad in a game.
So you're not going to engage in any real discussion unless everyone, apparently including people who aren't actively posting the thread anymore, explicitly agrees with some statement they've never disagreed with? I mean, can you quote something from me that even implies that I do not agree that RMT is in violation of an EULA that spells it out, much less? The statement is pretty much a tautology, it's just absurd to abruptly demand that people state agreement with some statement they've never even disagreed with and which is true by definition.
Originally posted by SiddGames But does it ruin the fun some people get from playing a game? Yes, it does - you can see those people on any game forums where the topic comes up.
But it also improves the fun some other people get from playing a game, as you can see from the people who buy gold for real money, and as I've pointed out before. "Having this ruins some people's fun" isn't much of an argument when it's also true that "removing this ruins some people's fun", as I've pointed out before.
I don't assume you guys are gold-buyers, I'm simply using that as shorthand for "people who are arguing against the anti-gold-buying position in this thread."
Originally posted by Pantastic But it also improves the fun some other people get from playing a game, as you can see from the people who buy gold for real money, and as I've pointed out before. "Having this ruins some people's fun" isn't much of an argument when it's also true that "removing this ruins some people's fun", as I've pointed out before.
And there we have it, the core issue. If we have two mutually exclusive "fun methods" in a game (gold buying and anti-gold-buying), does it not just make sense that each type of player would seek out and play the game(s) that endorsed their preferred play style? Gold-buyers would play on gold-buying-endorsed games and anti-gold-buyers would play on games that prohibited gold-buying. People (like yourself) who had no preference would naturally not even take that into consideration when deciding which games they play and enjoy the most. Is this not reasonable?
I can't decide if I want to pursue the "prove it affects the game" discussion any further. Frankly, I care enough to discuss it in a forum but not enough to put in the effort to construct a rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon, which is practically impossible anyway because it would require two identical instances of a game, one with gold farming and one without, plus identical players, etc. It seems reasonable (to me) that gold farming increases the inflation rate:
1. Does a disparity between gold entering the economy versus leaving it cause inflation? Yes.
2. Does flawed game design lead to inflation, because more gold is entering the economy than leaving it? Yes.
3. If gold influx causes inflation, would it be reasonable to think that a higher rate of gold influx would increase inflation faster? I think that is reasonable, yes.
4. Does gold farming cause gold to enter the economy faster than without gold farming? Again, I think so, yes. I've seen several arguments where people state that if the gold farmers weren't there, you can't assume the gold rate would be less because the players would just farm it themselves. Well, no, I don't think they would. One of the base arguments used is that players who buy gold have limited time, but excess real cash. If gold farmers didn't exist in their game, they would not suddenly have more free time to play the game. They would simply go without. So, in general, I think it is reasonable to think the rate of gold entering the economy is less in a game without gold farmers.
5. If 3 and 4 are true, then gold farming does increase the rate of inflation in a game economy.
That's the basic premise behind what I think gold farming does to a game. I think it's reasonable theory. We might disagree about 3 and 4 above, but I think my position is reasonable.
I don't see what the big deal is as long as the sellers use normal in game means to obtain the gold. If some smuck has more $$$ than he/she knows what to do with and rather spend it on buying gold than grinding for it, that's his business.
To those that cry saying that it isn't fair because the farmers can grind 24x7, get a life, maybe it isn't fair that some players can't play even a few hours a night most nights of the week like others. That's life, and it isn't fair.
I think some people just get upset because mommy and daddy wouldn't give them $$$ to buy gold. These are freaking games we are talking about. Let people play the way they want to play. If you don't like people buying gold STFU and play single player games.
Do I support gold buyers / sellers, nope, but I am smart enough to know that if someone wants to buy or sell gold there isn't much that can be done to stop them in the long wrong.
The only real solution is removing the ability to trade gold and items with other players. That's the only way you could be 100% sure that someone didn't buy and sell gold.
I am sorry to come off rude, but it is just a tiresome subject. Some people loath buyers and sellers. Either it is because they can't afford to buy themselves, or they want to dictate what other people can or can't do.
And as far as it being illegal, just because something is against someone's EULA doesn't mean that it is against the law. If it was truely illegal do you really think that companies like IGE would be so bold in their advertisements?
I have played dozens of MMOs including the big ones like EQ and WoW and have yet to see any farmer that I couldn't ignore or just move to another area and let them do their own thing. Heck even better if you play PVP gank them everytime you see them.
But repeat after me, THESE ARE ONLY GAMES. They are supposed to be fun. If someone's fun is buying gold so they can have the gear they want, that is their buisness. If them doing so makes you mad, play a single player game so you don't have to worry about it.
-------------------------------- Currently Playing: Guild Wars 2 and Path of Exile
But repeat after me, THESE ARE ONLY GAMES. They are supposed to be fun. If someone's fun is buying gold so they can have the gear they want, that is their buisness. If them doing so makes you mad, play a single player game so you don't have to worry about it.
No, why don't you play a game that allows the buying/selling of items and stop cheating, lying, violating the EULA of games that don't allow it. You are ruining my fun and I am playing by the rules.
Originally posted by Samuraisword Originally posted by neuronomad
But repeat after me, THESE ARE ONLY GAMES. They are supposed to be fun. If someone's fun is buying gold so they can have the gear they want, that is their buisness. If them doing so makes you mad, play a single player game so you don't have to worry about it.
No, why don't you play a game that allows the buying/selling of items and stop cheating, lying, violating the EULA of games that don't allow it. You are ruining my fun and I am playing by the rules.
Why don't you learn to read?
I clearly stated: "Do I support gold buyers / sellers, nope", thus A) I don't buy gold nor do I support those that buy and sell. But I do think that people get way, way too worried about the whole deal.
And as far as me running your game, I play by the rules too, so HTF do I ruin your game?
-------------------------------- Currently Playing: Guild Wars 2 and Path of Exile
Originally posted by neuronomad Why don't you learn to read?
I clearly stated: "Do I support gold buyers / sellers, nope", thus A) I don't buy gold nor do I support those that buy and sell. But I do think that people get way, way too worried about the whole deal.
And as far as me running your game, I play by the rules too, so HTF do I ruin your game?
If you don't support gold selling/buying and play by the rules then why are you defending it?
It doesn't matter if you don't believe it harms anyone else, though the many reasons are commonly known, just read this entire thread and all the others on this subject. If it's against the rules that's all you need to know. Lobby the game developers to change the rules, but until then you are expected to play by them.
Originally posted by Samuraisword Originally posted by neuronomad Why don't you learn to read?
I clearly stated: "Do I support gold buyers / sellers, nope", thus A) I don't buy gold nor do I support those that buy and sell. But I do think that people get way, way too worried about the whole deal.
And as far as me running your game, I play by the rules too, so HTF do I ruin your game?
If you don't support gold selling/buying and play by the rules then why are you defending it?
It doesn't matter if you don't believe it harms anyone else, though the many reasons are commonly known, just read this entire thread and all the others on this subject. If it's against the rules that's all you need to know. Lobby the game developers to change the rules, but until then you are expected to play by them.
Because nothing is going to change. There will always be a gold buyer/seller black market. And I would bet dollars to donuts that most if not all game developers aren't in bed with the likes of IGE. So bitching about it constantly isn't going to change anything. Blame it one games like WoW that are gear based instead of skill based.
I still don't really believe that gold buyers / sellers hurt the economy. I have made a fortune playing the AH in WoW because of gold buyers that don't mind playing HUGE prices for items. And if prices going up high really hurt the game, the game companies would inact some type of ceiling on item prices.
The bottom line is that it is just another thing for people to bitch about. It to me is no different than the who topic line of Causal vs. Hardcore. Some people are always going to have more free time than they know what to do with. Other people are going to have more money than they know what to do with. It is a hopeless topic. Nothing will change.
-------------------------------- Currently Playing: Guild Wars 2 and Path of Exile
Comments
True, the post was somewhat of a red herring, but your accusation was no less so. Heed your own advice and stay on topic.
Our points are not being countered, as far as I've seen. In fact, they're not often even acknowledged, as you so deftly show. Here's a concise list to help you stay on target (and guys, feel free to add to it):
--No one is arguing that RMT is not in clear violation of the EULA. That has been conceded by everyone from the start. Let it go. We're arguing about whether it's actually bad; that is, whether such a clause should even be included in the EULA in the first place.
--Scathing testimony and hackneyed "white papers" aside, we haven't seen any evidence that RMT has a significant impact on game economies, at least, no more than other flaws in the closed MMO economy have caused. Maybe you believe you have, but we believe we haven't, and until we do, we have no reason to change our minds. No amount of your personal experience will be able to change our own.
--It's true, Jorev, that I can play something else if the grind of MMO X doesn't appeal to me; but if MMO X has some great questing opportunities or some great PvP, and I've got the money to burn, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to experience them (again, EULA aside) without suffering through the deliberate time-sinks designed exclusively to keep me from reaching them sooner. Those systems are designed to keep players trudging along for years on end, and I don't play that way. I rarely stick with an MMO longer than a month or two. It will always come back to you and I seeing different parts of the same game as the fun parts, and each of us doing what's necessary to reach them.
Lastly, this is indeed a debate, not a discussion. There are two pretty clear-cut sides, each of whom is attempting to best the other by pointing out logical flaws, offering arguments and counter-arguments. We will then, unsurprisingly, continue to use debating methods (re: actual arguments), because anything else is simply idiotic prattle.
Like I said before, I have no desire to go through an exhaustive, point-by-point discussion of this guy's paper. You're free to bring up whatever individual part of it you want.
I will at least agree, though, that the topic's quickly approaching a stalemate.
well wether its banned or not, it will be done anyway through ebay or some other company , the best thing to do imho is to make a market server like eq2 did where you can sell/buy things SECURELY and be able to have said game devs be able to track the transactions.
playing eq2 and two worlds
True, the post was somewhat of a red herring, but your accusation was no less so. Heed your own advice and stay on topic.
Our points are not being countered, as far as I've seen. In fact, they're not often even acknowledged, as you so deftly show. Here's a concise list to help you stay on target (and guys, feel free to add to it):
--No one is arguing that RMT is not in clear violation of the EULA. That has been conceded by everyone from the start. Let it go. We're arguing about whether it's actually bad; that is, whether such a clause should even be included in the EULA in the first place.
--Scathing testimony and hackneyed "white papers" aside, we haven't seen any evidence that RMT has a significant impact on game economies, at least, no more than other flaws in the closed MMO economy have caused. Maybe you believe you have, but we believe we haven't, and until we do, we have no reason to change our minds. No amount of your personal experience will be able to change our own.
--It's true, Jorev, that I can play something else if the grind of MMO X doesn't appeal to me; but if MMO X has some great questing opportunities or some great PvP, and I've got the money to burn, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to experience them (again, EULA aside) without suffering through the deliberate time-sinks designed exclusively to keep me from reaching them sooner. Those systems are designed to keep players trudging along for years on end, and I don't play that way. I rarely stick with an MMO longer than a month or two. It will always come back to you and I seeing different parts of the same game as the fun parts, and each of us doing what's necessary to reach them.
Lastly, this is indeed a debate, not a discussion. There are two pretty clear-cut sides, each of whom is attempting to best the other by pointing out logical flaws, offering arguments and counter-arguments. We will then, unsurprisingly, continue to use debating methods (re: actual arguments), because anything else is simply idiotic prattle.
1. It's very easy being a hypocrite and writing utter bollocks in a convincing tone. That's what I did.
2. The EULA thing was still being brought up by certain individuals after countless extremely valid arguments about it being the ruleset by which you abide when playing a game. Also the thing that people seem to be ignoring is the fact that life/games have rules, and you SHOULD abide by them. What you're trying to bring in is the argument of whether these rules suck or not? Start a new thread about that, this discussion is about "SHOULD BUYING ONLINE CASH/GOLD BE BANNED?" and I say hell yeah. It's against the rules of the game.
3. The fact that RMT creates avatars that take away from immersion, crowd certain zones and are highly likely to use third party programs is already enough to arouse anger towards them. Add to this the "altering/ruining the economy" argument and you've got yourself a whole lot of RMT cons.
4. I still don't get the goddarned "how can they be ruining the economy?" thing. Come on. Face reality already. Do you really think certain MMO economies would be as they are now if it weren't for farmers? Do you really think they could be WORSE without farmers?
5. I've got the money to burn, there's no reason why I shouldn't be
able to experience them (again, EULA aside) without suffering through
the deliberate time-sinks designed exclusively to keep me from reaching
them sooner. This discussion is not about all aspects of RMT. You're bringing in other more easily defendable aspects of RMT. This has nothing to do with powerlevelling services. This is about buying online gold. You can powerlevel all you want for all I care, so if you don't have enough time, powerlevel. That is not taking away from my game experience since you'd have wasted the exact same time levelling anyways. Just don't buy that goddamn gold.
6. Debates are more about personal verbal and intellectual talent than about the subject matter at hand (or at least that's what they've unfortunately been converted into in the academic world). What I want to see is people actually taking into account what others say, not just thinking about how they're going to bring the other side down.
7. And I'm sorry if you feel left out, I'll add you to the list of people with unconstructive posts the next time I use it. "Scathing testimony and hackneyed "white papers"", you really did go through a lot of trouble to back up those comments. "No amount of your personal experience will be able to change our own", hooray for shoving your fingers in your ears and yelling "blah blah blah".
8. Again I'm acting like a COMPLETE AND UTTER hypocrite but I'm trying to prove a point here. "No amount of your personal experience will be able to change our own", I think I'll go cry in my room since you made me feel so small.
What are you talking about? Seriously, read the post that you're responding to and respond to it or quote the specific part of my post that leads you to believe that I am playing a game I don't think is fun, am being forced to do so, or am violating the EULA of a game. You guys need to stop with the absurd accusations, it just makes people think you're insane, it doesn't actually cause them to think you're making sense.
If I'm talking about game design and why I think that rampant gold-selling highlights an underlying game flaw rather than being a problem itself (which I was), it doesn't make any sense to rant on about EULAs and accuse me of violating them.
No, the post I quoted explicitly said that it was not looking at technical aspects of the debate, and was looking at whether gold farmers ruin the entertainment of the game for other players. I pointed out that the exact argument you made about how including RMT in games ruins it for some players would also apply to removing RMT from games, and that therefore your argument was flawed. Jumping around shouting "EULA EULA" doesn't change that; the argument you made was flawed, and trying to shift and pretend like it had something to do with the EULA doesn't mean that it did.
BTW, does this really mean that you have no problems at all with people selling gold and items for real money as long as the EULA for a game allows it; that if the makers of your current MMORPG decided to change the EULA so that it was not forbidden, you would not consider the game ruined, the economy would no longer be ruined, and your fun would not be impacted? If the fact that RMT involves an EULA is your only objection to it, then you should be fine with that.
You said "I don't want to go into arguing about the 'flaws' in his paper..." so do you or don't you? One minute you're saying that you don't want to discuss the flaws in his paper, then later you're acting like I'm doing something wrong by not discussing the flaws. Make up your mind.
If someone makes an arugument based on the fact that behaviour is not liked by some people and doesn't mention EULAs at all, and someone else points out that their argument applies equally well to another situation, bringing up EULAs is just a red herring. You might want to learn some basic logic and reasoning skills.
What 'certain MMO economies', how are they now, what makes their current state bad, how did you determine that their current state was caused by farmers, and why would it be inconceivable for them to be worse? All I ever see from any of you is this kind of ranting; you just ramble on about how economies are 'ruined' and how anyone who doesn't agree just isn't facing reality yet you can't even say what's wrong with the economies or how you determined that it was due to RMT and not some other cause.
Behaviour not liked by some people doesn't mention EULAs -> pointed out to apply equally well to another situation -> EULA = red herring -> learn logic skills. Ok got it.
When talking about games nowadays, there's always an EULA. The EULA is what you agree to abide by. Mentioning the EULA is like quoting the constitution of a game(although it has grown to be nothing but a pause between installing and playing a game due to lack of respect for the games industry via piracy and exploitation of game worlds/hacking).
And in case you hadn't noticed there was a certain amount of cynicism applied to my flame on flame posts.
To ainokeii:
I did read your previous posts. I thought you had some nice points from time to time. But I do think Siddgames made a pretty decent comeback to your flaming the writer of the article. That's why I think your backup was lacking on the remarks. You also try to make me look like the bad guy in your latest posts. Nice touch. Claiming I don't care about your experience is insulting, why bother being on internet forums if I don't care about anyone else's thoughts? I'm as empathic as a dolphin on weed and as objective as buddha. The reason I don't really care about powerlevelling is that it doesn't alter the game world in almost any way. As much time would have been spent levelling if you'd done it yourself, and you're probably not taking a lot away from others while having it done for you. I'd never do it, but I don't think it's as big a problem as gold/itemfarming.
Another method you use is the impartial card. You claim it doesn't really concern you and you've never affected by gold farmers and then you go on to semi-flame other people's views. Doesn't seem right to me. After all I'm a moralist preacher of the EULAs.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not farming negatively impacts a game (something which your side has failed to prove as well as ours), the EULA has plenty to do with the discussion.
Suppose we have a hypothetical game: a FFA open PVP game. Some players use a 3rd-party radar hack to track enemy players and some don't. The players who use the radar have a significant advantage over those that don't; the use of the radar lets them avoid unfavorable encounters twice as often as radar-less players, and it allows them to launch encounter-winning first-strikes against radar less players twice as often. All players agree, the use of radar significantly alters the core PVP gameplay.
Are you in favor of or oppose the use of that 3rd-party radar in this hypothetical game? Does your opinion depend on whether or not the EULA forbids the use of the radar tool or if the EULA allows open 3rd-party mods in the game?
That is correct: if the EULA allows for the gold/item selling, then I don't have any problem with players who engage in such activity.
Not quite. Changing the EULA, or any other part of a game for that matter, could change a player's "fun factor", be that nerfing a player's main class, altering play mechanisms, or a variety of other things - including what is acceptable behavior as described in the EULA. The game company is well within their right to do so - it's their game. The player, if he is so inclined, has the right to quit playing the game if he no longer has fun.
A converse example for you: if a EULA allowed RMT and then the company changed it to forbid it, I would likewise expect players who favored RMT and whose "fun factor" was now diminished by the EULA change to leave the game if the company was deaf to their protests.
In summary, there are a variety of ways game company decisions affect players' fun in the game. What is allowed and forbidden by EULA is one of those. If gold buyers can't have fun in a game without buying gold to "get them to the fun part" faster, it seems reasonable to me that those players would quit the un-fun game and go find one that was more fun for them.
And before someone on the other sides makes the same statement about the non-gold-buyers - again, the common rules by which players AGREE to abide is layed out in the EULA - it is unreasonable to expect those who abide by the rules to just leave when rule-breakers diminish their fun.
I'm trying to think of a parallel example in another field. How about sports? Non-performance-enhancing athletes suffer in comparison to those who cheat and use performance enhancing drugs. Do we say to the "clean" athletes: You are whiners, go find another sport to compete in if you don't like the cheaters in this one? No, we don't.
Sorry, that's not what I thought we were arguing about. I can see how the OP's question could be interpreted that way. If you, ianubisi, Pantastic, ctrlwlf and whoever else all agree that RMT is in clear violation of EULA's that spell it out, then I will move on to the discussion about whether or not RMT is bad in a game.
To spell that out real quick like: I agree to the superficial argument that bad game design can lead to RMT and that RMT in and of itself is not to blame for a game's ills. However, as everyone here does seem to agree, different people have fun different ways and I think it is unrealistic to expect a single game to satisfy everyone. Since you can't satisfy everyone, everyone would (logically) end up playing different games - whatever best matches their idea of fun. RMT would be in some games and would not be in others, since people seem divided over whether or not it is bad.
This is called Burden of Proof. If you claim something exists, it is your responsibility to prove that it exists against the rebuttals of those that refute its existence. Since the claim was made: "farmers ruin MMOGs" the burden lies in those supporting this argument.
If you know the first thing about debate you understand this.
Stop lumping us together. You deal with each individual on their own merits. I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me. Got it?
I have stated in all cases where this argument has come up, that I have no qualms whatsoever with companies banning users who violate the EULA. This is a bannable offense, and I think MMOG companies are well within their rights to execute on their agreements.
But I also see this as a finger in the dyke. It is, and I'll repeat what I've typed in this post before, as intevitable as the tide. I believe that companies operating in resistance to this behavior are misguided, and their efforts would be better spent in either modifying their game design to dampen the effect or find a way to incorporate it safely. But you see, that's simply my perspective and I have no objection at all to companies that prefer to "fight the good fight" until the bitter end.
Personally, I believe companies operating in resistance to this behavior are often pursuing ulterior motives, though I have also frequently stated that I firmly believe they want people to play the game within the rules they've developed.
Oh and all messageboard lawyers and debate queens need to burn in hell.
I never claimed to be educated in the rules of debate, nor have I agreed to some debate EULA out there that contains those rules
But i jest.
Got it. Likewise, I am not someone who has stated "farmers ruin MMOGs" so stop tagging that position on me as well. I believe my statements were that they violate EULA (which I am no longer arguing about) and that some players perceive gold-farming to have a negative impact on their entertainment.
To reiterate that last point, and provide the proof you require, I just have to state this: gold-farming makes me enjoy a game less. There, I have proven my point. You see, we're talking about players' perceptions of having fun - I think we all agree that different people have fun different ways. We agree fun is subjective, yes? Like opinions, nobody's perception of fun is right or wrong. Like a person's feelings, they are factual in that person's experience. If I punch someone in the nose and they say it pisses them off, I can't say, "No it doesn't" or "Prove it" -- if he's pissed, he's pissed, there's no way to debate it or make his feeling less valid.
Does gold-farming have a concrete negative effect on a game? I'll bend the knee on this one and say I don't know for a fact that it does. But does it ruin the fun some people get from playing a game? Yes, it does - you can see those people on any game forums where the topic comes up.
Your side is the one making the claim, thus they're the ones with the burden of proof, this is just a basic fact of rational discussion. It's not like that part of the discussion is even at the point where any kind of evidence is really relevant, your side refuses to even clarify basic information about the oft-repeated claim, such as exactly what the negative impact is and how you determine it to be caused by RMT instead of by other factors. Repeating a claim doesn't make it true.
Your analogy is not relevant to the discussin; in your analogy, players are using something that changes basic game mechanics, giving them an ability unavailible to those that don't, while players buying gold are not gaining any new ability, they're just having someone else do a grind for them. Plus your analogy includes an assumption that all players agree that the use of hack significantly alters gameplay, but whether RMT significantly alters gameplay is an item under discussion. The questions about the analogy therefore don't really have anything to do with the discussion at hand, and answering them would not be productive, especially since I don't have a simple yes or no answer.
Let's go with an analogy directly related to the issue at hand: Let's say that there's a game, and you have the Mace of Mediocracy, then run into 6 different people with the Sword of Superliciousness, which does twice the damage. You have only the mace because you don't have a lot of spare time and am not willing to buy one with real money. The first of these people got the sword by buying gold, then purchasing the sword on the market. The second got the sword by spending a week of his copious free time just grinding for cash, then purchased the sword on the market. The third got the sword by having his two buddies play on his account to help him grind out the cash over a week. The fourth got the sword because he helped a firend move IRL, and his friend gave him the sword for helping out. The fifth got the sword because he has a higher-level alt who farmed the gold for the sword in 2 hours. And the sixth got it by actually going and doing whatever quest/boss/dungeon/crafting you do to get the sword in the first place.
For me, whether I enjoy the game or not does not depend at all on which of the six swordsmen I encounter in the game wether fighting with or against them (especially since I don't have any way to tell the difference), and it doesn't really matter what the EULA says about each individual case. For you, and the other 'ban gold buying' posters, it seems that each case is quite different, and for you in particular it appears that whether the actions are against the EULA or not is also quite significant. In general, the 'ban gold buyers' crowd seems to think that 1 is very bad, EULA or not, yet 3 is not bad at all even though it's generally against EULAs more than 1. 2, 5, and 6 are considered equivalent, even though the degree of 'earning it' varies a lot by my standards, and 4 is a grey area of the sort that people tend to try to avoid discussing at all.
That's not reall what I asked; I asked if you had a problem with the activity, not if you had a problem with players who engage in it. Your later answers dance all around the issue too, where you talk about the fact that people can leave games or that changing a EULA might change someone's fun. Very simply, if the only difference between 2 games (or 2 server rulesets in the same game, like in EQ) is that one allows RMT in the EULA and the other doesn't, would you enjoy the two games a different amount? (FYI, for me the answer is 'no, I would enjoy them the same').
This is probably part of why these discussions go in so many directions, you think of yourself and people like you as 'non-gold-buyers', so presumably you consider the people arguing against you as 'gold-buyers' or at least 'pro-gold-buyers'. But I am also a non-gold-buyer (and IIRC everyone else who's posted in disagreement with you, though I'm not going to search) ; as I've said in this very thread, I have never bought gold/items and would quit a game if I felt a significant desire to. This seems to color a lot of your answers, and certainly colors a lot of the answers on your side of the argument.
So you're not going to engage in any real discussion unless everyone, apparently including people who aren't actively posting the thread anymore, explicitly agrees with some statement they've never disagreed with? I mean, can you quote something from me that even implies that I do not agree that RMT is in violation of an EULA that spells it out, much less? The statement is pretty much a tautology, it's just absurd to abruptly demand that people state agreement with some statement they've never even disagreed with and which is true by definition.
But it also improves the fun some other people get from playing a game, as you can see from the people who buy gold for real money, and as I've pointed out before. "Having this ruins some people's fun" isn't much of an argument when it's also true that "removing this ruins some people's fun", as I've pointed out before.
I don't assume you guys are gold-buyers, I'm simply using that as shorthand for "people who are arguing against the anti-gold-buying position in this thread."
And there we have it, the core issue. If we have two mutually exclusive "fun methods" in a game (gold buying and anti-gold-buying), does it not just make sense that each type of player would seek out and play the game(s) that endorsed their preferred play style? Gold-buyers would play on gold-buying-endorsed games and anti-gold-buyers would play on games that prohibited gold-buying. People (like yourself) who had no preference would naturally not even take that into consideration when deciding which games they play and enjoy the most. Is this not reasonable?
I can't decide if I want to pursue the "prove it affects the game" discussion any further. Frankly, I care enough to discuss it in a forum but not enough to put in the effort to construct a rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon, which is practically impossible anyway because it would require two identical instances of a game, one with gold farming and one without, plus identical players, etc. It seems reasonable (to me) that gold farming increases the inflation rate:
1. Does a disparity between gold entering the economy versus leaving it cause inflation? Yes.
2. Does flawed game design lead to inflation, because more gold is entering the economy than leaving it? Yes.
3. If gold influx causes inflation, would it be reasonable to think that a higher rate of gold influx would increase inflation faster? I think that is reasonable, yes.
4. Does gold farming cause gold to enter the economy faster than without gold farming? Again, I think so, yes. I've seen several arguments where people state that if the gold farmers weren't there, you can't assume the gold rate would be less because the players would just farm it themselves. Well, no, I don't think they would. One of the base arguments used is that players who buy gold have limited time, but excess real cash. If gold farmers didn't exist in their game, they would not suddenly have more free time to play the game. They would simply go without. So, in general, I think it is reasonable to think the rate of gold entering the economy is less in a game without gold farmers.
5. If 3 and 4 are true, then gold farming does increase the rate of inflation in a game economy.
That's the basic premise behind what I think gold farming does to a game. I think it's reasonable theory. We might disagree about 3 and 4 above, but I think my position is reasonable.
QQ
I don't see what the big deal is as long as the sellers use normal in game means to obtain the gold. If some smuck has more $$$ than he/she knows what to do with and rather spend it on buying gold than grinding for it, that's his business.
To those that cry saying that it isn't fair because the farmers can grind 24x7, get a life, maybe it isn't fair that some players can't play even a few hours a night most nights of the week like others. That's life, and it isn't fair.
I think some people just get upset because mommy and daddy wouldn't give them $$$ to buy gold. These are freaking games we are talking about. Let people play the way they want to play. If you don't like people buying gold STFU and play single player games.
Do I support gold buyers / sellers, nope, but I am smart enough to know that if someone wants to buy or sell gold there isn't much that can be done to stop them in the long wrong.
The only real solution is removing the ability to trade gold and items with other players. That's the only way you could be 100% sure that someone didn't buy and sell gold.
I am sorry to come off rude, but it is just a tiresome subject. Some people loath buyers and sellers. Either it is because they can't afford to buy themselves, or they want to dictate what other people can or can't do.
And as far as it being illegal, just because something is against someone's EULA doesn't mean that it is against the law. If it was truely illegal do you really think that companies like IGE would be so bold in their advertisements?
I have played dozens of MMOs including the big ones like EQ and WoW and have yet to see any farmer that I couldn't ignore or just move to another area and let them do their own thing. Heck even better if you play PVP gank them everytime you see them.
But repeat after me, THESE ARE ONLY GAMES. They are supposed to be fun. If someone's fun is buying gold so they can have the gear they want, that is their buisness. If them doing so makes you mad, play a single player game so you don't have to worry about it.
--------------------------------
Currently Playing: Guild Wars 2 and Path of Exile
Quit: Eden Eternal, Wakfu, DDO, STO, DCUO, Sword 2, Atlantica Online, LOTRO, SWTOR, RIFT, Earthrise, FFXIV, RoM, Allods Online, GA,WAR,CO,V:SoH,POTBS,TR,COH/COV, WOW, DDO,AL, EQ, Eve, L2, AA, Mx0, SWG, SoR, AO, RFO, DAoC, and others.
www.twitter.com/mlwhitt
www.michaelwhitt.com
Why don't you learn to read?
I clearly stated: "Do I support gold buyers / sellers, nope", thus A) I don't buy gold nor do I support those that buy and sell. But I do think that people get way, way too worried about the whole deal.
And as far as me running your game, I play by the rules too, so HTF do I ruin your game?
--------------------------------
Currently Playing: Guild Wars 2 and Path of Exile
Quit: Eden Eternal, Wakfu, DDO, STO, DCUO, Sword 2, Atlantica Online, LOTRO, SWTOR, RIFT, Earthrise, FFXIV, RoM, Allods Online, GA,WAR,CO,V:SoH,POTBS,TR,COH/COV, WOW, DDO,AL, EQ, Eve, L2, AA, Mx0, SWG, SoR, AO, RFO, DAoC, and others.
www.twitter.com/mlwhitt
www.michaelwhitt.com
I clearly stated: "Do I support gold buyers / sellers, nope", thus A) I don't buy gold nor do I support those that buy and sell. But I do think that people get way, way too worried about the whole deal.
And as far as me running your game, I play by the rules too, so HTF do I ruin your game?
If you don't support gold selling/buying and play by the rules then why are you defending it?
It doesn't matter if you don't believe it harms anyone else, though the many reasons are commonly known, just read this entire thread and all the others on this subject. If it's against the rules that's all you need to know. Lobby the game developers to change the rules, but until then you are expected to play by them.
I clearly stated: "Do I support gold buyers / sellers, nope", thus A) I don't buy gold nor do I support those that buy and sell. But I do think that people get way, way too worried about the whole deal.
And as far as me running your game, I play by the rules too, so HTF do I ruin your game?
If you don't support gold selling/buying and play by the rules then why are you defending it?
It doesn't matter if you don't believe it harms anyone else, though the many reasons are commonly known, just read this entire thread and all the others on this subject. If it's against the rules that's all you need to know. Lobby the game developers to change the rules, but until then you are expected to play by them.
Because nothing is going to change. There will always be a gold buyer/seller black market. And I would bet dollars to donuts that most if not all game developers aren't in bed with the likes of IGE. So bitching about it constantly isn't going to change anything. Blame it one games like WoW that are gear based instead of skill based.
I still don't really believe that gold buyers / sellers hurt the economy. I have made a fortune playing the AH in WoW because of gold buyers that don't mind playing HUGE prices for items. And if prices going up high really hurt the game, the game companies would inact some type of ceiling on item prices.
The bottom line is that it is just another thing for people to bitch about. It to me is no different than the who topic line of Causal vs. Hardcore. Some people are always going to have more free time than they know what to do with. Other people are going to have more money than they know what to do with. It is a hopeless topic. Nothing will change.
--------------------------------
Currently Playing: Guild Wars 2 and Path of Exile
Quit: Eden Eternal, Wakfu, DDO, STO, DCUO, Sword 2, Atlantica Online, LOTRO, SWTOR, RIFT, Earthrise, FFXIV, RoM, Allods Online, GA,WAR,CO,V:SoH,POTBS,TR,COH/COV, WOW, DDO,AL, EQ, Eve, L2, AA, Mx0, SWG, SoR, AO, RFO, DAoC, and others.
www.twitter.com/mlwhitt
www.michaelwhitt.com
I agree, they are not.