PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (3) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Why MMORPG item trading is not bad
April 18th 2002, 23:01 CEST by piramida

It is a generally accepted fact among MMORPG players that trading game items for real money is a Bad Thing. Most of the time, however, the reasoning beyond that statement is far from perfect. I would really love to hear PC elder's view on this subject.

MMORPG worlds, naturally, spawn item trading marketplaces, with their own unstable economies, akin to economies of third-world countries. Black markets of hard currency do exist in both and there's nothing that could be done to stop it, probably besides putting everyone in a separate prison cell (prohibiting item exchange at all). Abstracting from the gameplay itself, each MMORPG has thousands of people daily creating items which are demanded by thousands of other people. Instability (dependance on hacks, patches, server glitches, etc) makes the black hard currency market unevitable evil. No matter how hard the government would try to ban the very notion of dollar, the dollar is not going anywhere. In MMORPGs, it's even worse - moment when the item changes hands is not immediately tied to the moment cash changes hands, which makes tracking and banning item sales a laughably impossible task. But I'll skip the details of the process and discussion of possible fraud, since I believe this to be well known to those who've read past the first sentence. Let's just say that despite everything, item trade is booming, just visit your favourite auction site (or even the "slimy" Player Auctions) and do a few searches - tens of thousands of real dollars are exchaning hands every day.

Let's get straight to the moral and the question of this text: why are MMORPG item sales bad? Common answers are:

1. Because EULA prohibits it.
        Yeah... right. Next.

2. Because it gives hackers and fraudulent players a better incentive for doing all the Bad Things, perverting the intention of the original game and making the game world an unhappy greed-infested place without love.
        The universal answer, which always made me scream "bullshit". For most players, the incentive of having the uberitem in the game far outweights the possible gain of twenty dollars. Hacks have nothing to do with item trading - though used by traders wherever possible, it's just a tool rather than direct result of item trades. Even if items would have no value whatsoever people would be looking for a way to cheat the game, just do a research on popularity of cheating in single-player games. If there are loopholes, people would find them sooner or later, if there are people to fool, they will be fooled, and that's human nature.

3. Because game companies feel troubled that item losses caused by bugs in their software, networking glitches and people's stupidity can now be measured in dollars, which makes it a whole different situation requiring commercial security and tons of legal mumbo-jumbo.
        Most if not every MMORPG service provider states that everything contained on their server, including items, accounts and characters, always remains their property. I don't see how any player's claim could be ever tested in court, if they had never owned any of their items in the first place, and were never promised any insurance for their items - but then, I'm no lawyer. It just seems very logical.

4. Because it is not morally right to gain advantage over other "honest" players using your real-world financial status.
        Everyone plays the game the way that gives him/her the most satisfaction, even if that does not meet other player's expectations - the same way playing 24/7 gives you an "advantage". Most casual players, who form the demand for purchasable game items, can not dedicate much time to playing. Why do they have to keep themselves from buying something that they'd never be able to find in their lifetime but Really Want to have? It's their problem that they did not receive the satisfaction of "honestly" obtaining that item.

Besides, if you have a well established account in EQ and want to switch to an account in AC, you have no other means but sell/buying or starting all over leaving an unused account behind. Not everyone enjoys tedious leveling, some may like the status in itself, like most of you would not like (warning: irrelevant car analogy ahead) to save money for another year just to switch your (hypothetical) Porshe for Ferrari, throwing the Porshe away since you don't like it anymore. I know, legally you never owned the EQ account, but I'm talking about the motivation, and why this form of cheating known as item trades would stay.

Most casual players I approached on the subject immediately responded "People who buy items are idiots, I would never buy a virtual item for real money", and the very same people would, when given an item of outstanding usefullness for just 10$, would say "Sure, 10$ is nothing really, and it'll help make my game more fun". Maybe other people simply have more money to spend on their golf^H^H^H^Hhobby?

No, I'm not talking directly out of my ass, I'm generalizing what I've seen and researched on the matter. Game item trades are not bad, there is supply and there is demand, they are not going anywhere no matter how hard game companies are banning them, so why does almost everyone think it's something abnormal like eating babies? Because the traded subject is virtual? But so is, say, visiting a museum.

What do You think, besides obvious response that author is a moron who can't speak english?
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Why MMORPG item trading is not bad

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#31 by Bailey
2002-04-19 00:12:59
That phrase encompasses all known GIPs currently on the market. Go innovation!

Stuck flat smack dab in the middle of a century with nothing to lose.
#32 by Bailey
2002-04-19 00:13:25
Dammit Nova, I'm posting here. #31 in reference to #29.

Stuck flat smack dab in the middle of a century with nothing to lose.
#33 by HiredGoons
2002-04-19 00:19:57
Just out of pure malice, I'd like to see the game devs take a look at the hottest items selling on Ebay, and then adjust the game parameters to make those purchasers absolutely worthless.  

Ie, +12 Olsen Sword going for $300 on Ebay --- start giving them away by the bucket at the newbie spawn point.


I know, I know, that introduces distortion of a different type into that market.

Still...I'd like to see some of these hawkers take a bath on their "investments."
#34 by yotsuya
2002-04-19 00:22:32
LP hit it right on the head.

Arizona Diamondbacks 2001 World Series Champions
#35 by EvilAsh
2002-04-19 00:26:23
evilash@eviladam.com www.eviladam.com
Bishop that's not the case. I have read so many Cases of Product MAnagers.... CFo of businesses, LAwyers, Doctors who all play these type of games and spend money on them. Parent's are foolish to a point.. but after a while.. when you start seeing $2000 charges on your credit card.. you are going to Seriously look at your child a little differently.

On 2002-04-18 04:47:00  Some Sick fool said this.
"awww yeah, buzz baby, buzzzzz just for me."
#36 by Max
2002-04-19 00:31:52
http://massivebraincase.org/
Never having played any of these types of games, I'm not qualified to take much of a stance on this. That said... why is this such a problem?  Is it not possible to introduce some sort of item tracking that degrades the capability of any item permanently any time it's traded/lost/dropped/etc.?  Player A finds a +1 Olsen Sword, uses it for a while, upgrades it to +12 or whatever. As soon as it changes hands, it's a +1 Sword again.  Player B finds a +12 Olsen Sword (spawned by the game this time), but if it changes hands, it's just a +1 Sword again.  Or perhaps the capability is cut in half with each possession.

I'm sure there's some good reason, gameplay or otherwise, why this isn't done or possible. I haven't thought about it enough to tell you what it is, though. I guess much trading would be pointless, but... bah.

"I don't call him Rico Muerte or whatever his name was, he is and always will be Fatty McPantsdown." -MattG
#37 by LPMiller
2002-04-19 00:48:10
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
LP hit it right on the head.


and managed to show an obsessive love of -. - and -.

Will warez for food.
#38 by Max
2002-04-19 00:56:41
http://massivebraincase.org/
I love dashes - they're so immediate or something.

"I don't call him Rico Muerte or whatever his name was, he is and always will be Fatty McPantsdown." -MattG
#39 by "MrNutty"
2002-04-19 01:18:43
misternutty@hotmail.com
I fully agree with Nova.  These games (MMORPGs) aren't fun, they are just obsessive compulsive disorder acctuators.  That's why people don't have a problem 'cheating' at them.   I know lots of people who play Everquest and they pretty much all claim to hate the game, yet they play for hours on end...There really is something to 'game addiction' when it comes to these types of games..Not that I think the game companies should be liable (in the end people are responsible for their own actions)....
#40 by Nacho
2002-04-19 01:19:29
Here's what I'm wondering... (and maybe someone already touched on this, but I don't feel like reading all of this right now.) Do you, the player, actually have legal ownership over the items you collect? What you're collecting in these games are items that are stored on servers, which are owned by someone who allows you access to them, as long as you pay your monthly fee. Sounds a bit like a lease of intangible property, doesn't it? And, I don't believe you can just can sell off something you're just leasing.

I'm not a legal expert, so I may be wrong about this. So, anyone who happens to know a bit about property law, feel free to prove me wrong.

<smartandfunnysig>. .</smartandfunnysig>
#41 by jafd
2002-04-19 01:31:32
As far as I know, no EULA has any legal authenticity, as of yet.

Am I mistaken about this?

Personally, I don't see the EULA being any more respectable than the wishes of the authors that Amazon is ignoring...

You just don't like being told what to do. Admit it.
#42 by Martin
2002-04-19 01:34:56
http://www.mocol.nu
#40 by Nacho
(and maybe someone already touched on this, but I don't feel like reading all of this right now.)

Which of course is the best way to jump into a discussion...

-- Martin
Free love! As in "Free beer!" And "Free Kevin Mitnick!" I suppose. Only he's already free.
#43 by crash
2002-04-19 01:35:29

These games (MMORPGs) aren't fun, they are just obsessive compulsive disorder acctuators.

they're a lot of fun, once you get over the fact that the entire point of the game is to play, not to win. and uber items are not necessary to have fun. they only are if you're led by the lure of "winning" the game.

but then, you've all been trained to "get to the end" and "win" for nearly your entire gaming existence, so it's understandable that this might cause some confusion and misinterpretation.

i'll agree that they could be a whole lot more. but i disagree that the "whole lot less" they are now is utterly dissatisfying. the only people that complain about level treadmills? powergamers. too busy trying to win to bother to play the game. jumping from game to game to be the firstest with the mostest and the bestest, when--in the final analysis--it doesn't really matter, and isn't an impediment to having "fun".

sad, really. but they're sad, not me, and whether they're frustrated or not, i still have a good time.

and bottom line, end of the day, that's all that matters to me.

- if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller
#44 by HiredGoons
2002-04-19 01:36:18
In common law, there might be something to that, Nacho.

However, in almost all situations a voluntary contract between two consenting adults is controlling.  

To get out of a contract (ie, to get a court to let you out of it) you have to prove something like:  unconscionability, fraud, duress, or mistake.  Not reading the terms is a bad defense.  There are other defenses, but courts really don't like running around voiding contracts that willing parties agree to.

That is, whatever property rights you may have are subject to the terms of that agreement.  You may have some type of common law right to +12 Olsen Swords, or maybe not, but the EULA is typically unambiguous about who has ownership.

Plus, there are usually kinds of clauses like "either party may terminate at will.", in these sorts of things.  

So, if you're doing something they don't like or the game gods feel like smiting you at random, you're at their mercy.  Of course, if they are arbitrary too often and wantonly cruel then nobody will do business with them in the long run.
#45 by HiredGoons
2002-04-19 01:51:23
jafd

This is a fairly representative paragraph of how the federal courts have ruled on EULAs, shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses.

Moore v. Microsoft Corp., 2002 N.Y. App. Div.

"We agree with the Supreme Court that the End-User License Agreement (hereinafter the EULA) contained in the defendant's software program is a validly binding contract between the parties which bars the plaintiff's claims (see Brower v Gateway 2000, 246 A.D.2d 246, 676 N.Y.S.2d 569). The terms of the EULA  were prominently displayed on the program user's computer screen before the software could be installed.

Moreover, the program's user was required to indicate assent to the EULA by clicking on the "I agree" icon before proceeding with the download of the software. Thus, the defendant offered a contract that the plaintiff accepted by using the software after having an opportunity to read the license at leisure. As a result, the plaintiff's claims are barred by the clear disclaimers, waivers of liability, and limitations of remedies contained in the EULA (see ProCD, Inc. v Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447; Specht v Netscape Communications Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585)."
#46 by Shadarr
2002-04-19 02:18:57
shadarr@yahoo.com http://digital-luddite.com
Max,

I think the main problem with making items worthless to anyone but the finder is that you want to encourage in game commerce, but discourage real-money transactions. The best way to do that would be to aggressively shut down real-world auctions, but that could prove to be too much of a hassle.


I agree with everyone who says it's a flaw in the game design. My favourite RPG (other than Fallout) is Shadowrun for Genesis. A couple times a year, I fire it up and play for a week or so, and I always start from the very beginning. There are cheat codes to get money, experience, whatever, but I don't use them because it's more fun to play the game the way it was meant to be played. If the same were true of PIGs, there wouldn't be this problem.
#47 by HiredGoons
2002-04-19 02:23:22
Forgot to put this:

Moore v. Microsoft
#48 by Bailey
2002-04-19 02:32:35
I preferred Shadowrun for the SNES.

Stuck flat smack dab in the middle of a century with nothing to lose.
#49 by jafd
2002-04-19 02:45:49
HiredGoons, thank you. That's very interesting, and was unknown to me until now.

Is this the only instance of an EULA being endorsed by the court system?

Aside from that, however... what if I just laundered any or all of my loot to an account that is played from a country outside the U.S., then sold the items? Would that be legal? Or illegal?

Who cares?

Rhetorical questions such as these simply highlight the problem... GIPs create a "simulated" economy that nevertheless has real-world value. Slapping a label on it that says, "Don't do this! Or we'll be mad at you!" does exactly nothing to alleviate the problem, and in fact, makes it worse for legitimate users.

Ever since Verant changed their EULA, I have personally abstained from my money-making hobby. That's because I'm a mostly moral and ethical person. Guess what? I'm in the minority.

Do you think the people playing EQ would rather deal with farmers with a sense of fair play, or ones without? It's the old saw... "if you criminalize item sales, then only criminals will sell items."

You just don't like being told what to do. Admit it.
#50 by jafd
2002-04-19 02:47:26
p.s.: I'd love to sell my old EQ accounts to another honest person. Email me!

</irony>

You just don't like being told what to do. Admit it.
#51 by Slappy
2002-04-19 02:47:47
Hmmm. What if the EULA for Adobe Photoshop stated that Adobe owned the rights to all artwork created or modified through the use of Photoshop. Would that be legal?

I've heard of some pretty funky clauses in EULAs before. My take on it is that they are like all contracts... and not all contracts are legal or binding. It entirely depends upon the specifics.....
#52 by HiredGoons
2002-04-19 03:00:10
jafd


This case:

PROCD, INC. v. ZEIDENBERG, 86 F.3d 1447 (1996)

Was the the first case I know that found a EULA contract to be valid.

Lexis says that case has been cited 61 times, only 1 negatively.  The Supreme Court hasn't heard the issue, but the federal circuits and state supreme courts that have been able to decide the issue and decided it in agreement with ProCD.

I haven't read every opinion of course, so there may be some nuance I'm missing, but a EULA is pretty cut and dried contract law.  

If you click on it, you'll be held to it.  (barring unconscionability, fraud, duress, shiny cowboy hat etc..)
#53 by HoseWater
2002-04-19 03:07:07
barneyque@hotmail.com
Not withstanding the 'nobody held a gun to your head' argument, pretty much all software EULA's are very offensive.

1968-2002 Robert 'HoseWater" Lloyd
#54 by Dev
2002-04-19 03:39:38
admin@techillimit.net
I'm glad MUDs are still in favor.. after trying Anarchy Online (please don't laugh at me) I went back to the old staple and have remained happy since.  MUDs are for the most part free to play, full of nice players and well maintained; anyone remember mutants for MajorBBS? I've been looking for an internet ready port of that codebase, I'd love to run it if I could.

"If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." -- Lewis Carroll
#55 by LPMiller
2002-04-19 04:06:28
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
Not having access to lexis nexus anymore, I dunno, but I could have sworn there were more than one instance of a EULA being declared not suitable notice.  

I have always wondered about EQ and DAoC. They make you click that EULA every damn time, which bugs the snot out of me, but it also means they could change it at any time. But who reads those damn things once, much less daily?

Will warez for food.
#56 by jafd
2002-04-19 04:13:43
IANAL, so I'm not sure that I read that judgement correctly... doesn't it simply state that the software/services vendor has the right to cancel the contract if they find that the consumer/user isn't obeying the terms of the agreement?

I don't think there's much disagreement over that... after all, it's pretty commonly accepted that the company reserves the right to refuse service for any reason, anyway.

The insanity of the EULA is this... expecting the end-user to abide by ludicrous terms in the first place. Yeah, sure, the company detects you breaking the rules, they can ban your account. Uh... so? First they have to detect you. The response of the average farmer: "Come catch me, bitch."

It'd be one thing if it were a crime to break the EULA; it isn't. It's a violation of the terms of the EULA, in which case, the company in question has the right to terminate the service. So, when piramida says "Yeah, right" in the topic, I think he's referring to the fact that, by the time the company has detected and banned a farmer, they've already made enough bank to pay for the account cost in the first place, plus the cost of a replacement account, plus some Twinkies. Maybe, a lot of twinkies.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned before... the only people who are going to look at the EULA and not just wave their middle fingers at it, are exactly the kind of people that aren't a big problem when they farm. Something to consider.

The trouble with item selling in GIPs today isn't the fact that it happens; it's going to happen in every GIP, now and forevermore, to greater or lesser degrees, dependent on the game's design. The problem is the utter lack of regulation on the part of the service provider, and the utter lack of ethics on the part of the biggest suppliers to the grey market; neither problem, let me point out, is going to be solved by any kind of EULA, no matter how draconian.

Here's my question... assume, hypothetically, that you had a GIP that had absolutely zero issues with cheating. Hugely unlikely, yes, but set that aside for the moment. If there were no cheating... would the transfer of in-game items (or, in-game services, an even more thorny issue...) for real world money be "wrong"?

You just don't like being told what to do. Admit it.
#57 by VeeSPIKE
2002-04-19 04:28:24
Here's my question... assume, hypothetically, that you had a GIP that had absolutely zero issues with cheating. Hugely unlikely, yes, but set that aside for the moment. If there were no cheating... would the transfer of in-game items (or, in-game services, an even more thorny issue...) for real world money be "wrong"?


Only if the EULA specifically prevented it, as in "you will not sell items you have gained for profit in any mannner, at any time." Or some other words to that effect.

Otherwise, it would not be 'wrong' per se, but ... weak.
#58 by Dev
2002-04-19 04:31:22
admin@techillimit.net
I still believe it would be wrong (at least from the corporate perspective) to share sell items in that case. However, I don't doubt that the company would still object, cheating or not.  Companies hate it when an unintended market springs up over their product, a certain market which they cannot control or have any real say over.  I can certainly understand the various viewpoints expressed by the companies, I mean.. if it isn't yours to begin with, should you have the right to sell it?  When you go into play an online game, you aren't purchasing stock in the company. Rather, you are renting the right to use the product.  Perhaps I should put it this way; you know the furniture rental businesses? like renting sofas and chairs for auditoriums? When you pay for the rental, you don't automatically get the right to sell the chairs do you?  See where I'm going?   Those are my thoughts on it at least.

"If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." -- Lewis Carroll
#59 by HiredGoons
2002-04-19 04:32:13
If you break the EULA -- it's not a crime.  It's just a breach of contract.  They can sue you only for compensation damages, btw.  In the case of a home user, that's not a lot of money and they won't get attorney's fees so it's not worth it most of the time.


LPMiller

I didn't personally eyeball every Shepardized every case, so I could be wrong.  But the few that I read seem to indicate the majority of courts will enforce a EULA, and that is pretty consistent with general contract law.  

And they are coming out more recently.  That Microsoft case I linked above was published just this week.
#60 by Bailey
2002-04-19 04:44:44
jafd

It would still be "wrong" because it would be an irritation to the company. First off, they're not getting a slice of the cash you're making, and that's both baffling and aggravating from a corporate perspective. Second, when you decide to scam someone and refuse to deliver goods after payment, who does the second party go bitching to? Customer service. So now you're creating work for them. Finally, by selling someone something they might not otherwise be able to acquire, at least not easily or before they're ready, you're breaking the rules of their little private universe, which rattles the ego-freaks at the top of the pyramid to no end.

Stuck flat smack dab in the middle of a century with nothing to lose.
#61 by Dev
2002-04-19 04:53:49
admin@techillimit.net
^

Agreed

"If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." -- Lewis Carroll
#62 by jafd
2002-04-19 05:01:01
Otherwise, it would not be 'wrong' per se, but ... weak.

What's weaker? Someone taking their excess loot and selling it for a fair price on the open market? Or someone farming a highly sought after item... just to trick out their 3rd twink?

if it isn't yours to begin with, should you have the right to sell it?

I'm sure most of you have heard the old saw, "possession is nine-tenths of the law." Say for example, I have an EQ item on my character; is it "wrong" to tell my little brother to do my laundry for me, in exchange for the item? Would I have the 'right' to do this?

you're breaking the rules of their little private universe, which rattles the ego-freaks at the top of the pyramid to no end.

No wonder I enjoyed my little hobby so much. It surely wasn't about the money.

when you decide to scam someone and refuse to deliver goods after payment, who does the second party go bitching to? Customer service.

Why didn't/doesn't customer serivce just... hang up the phone?


I certainly don't intend for anyone to answer the questions I pose above; never have "rhteorical" and "rectum" been so related. My intention in bringing these points up is to point out the fact that the entire situation is extremely complex. For a company to just camp out behind their laughable EULA and expect a) their playerbase to play along, and b) that to effectively address the problem, is sheer lunacy.

I remember the day that I decided to take advantage of Verant's stupidity, wholesale; it was the day that they announced that they couldn't implement the movement of spells within the player's spellbook, because they couldn't figure out how to implement it within the existing interface. I wish I had kept a copy of that forum post, because it was a real hoot.

Note to all companies expecting their customers to treat their rules wit respect: don't treat your customers like idiots.

You just don't like being told what to do. Admit it.
#63 by bago
2002-04-19 05:02:52
manga_Rando@hotmail.com
Funnily enough, I know someone who worked on Asheron's call, and he was sent several thesis papers by various college students showing how real world money converted into gametime spent to aquire an object, and how at current prices, the gold peice was trading for a higher value than the lira.

It's simple capitalism. If there are buyers, and there are sellers, connections will be made, regardless of the law. Throw massive public auctions into the mix with the ease of electronic transfers, and I'm frankly suprised that it hasn't reached a stock market level of activity.

iamelectro
#64 by crash
2002-04-19 05:05:37
Bailey:

Finally, by selling someone something they might not otherwise be able to acquire, at least not easily or before they're ready, you're breaking the rules of their little private universe, which rattles the ego-freaks at the top of the pyramid to no end.

do you use cheats in single-player RPGs?

if not, why not?

- if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller
#65 by VeeSPIKE
2002-04-19 05:06:12
What's weaker? Someone taking their excess loot and selling it for a fair price on the open market? Or someone farming a highly sought after item... just to trick out their 3rd twink?


Here is a thought, assuming it has not already been brought up earlier and I just missed it. How difficult would it be to develop an in-game system for trading/selling powerful items?

Being MMORPG-challenged, I have no idea if this has not already been tried either, but seems to me to be a way to totally close the system and end that argument at east.
#66 by crash
2002-04-19 05:15:09
from the bottom of the page:

There are currently 193 people browsing this site.

uh, holy shit.

- if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller
#67 by Dev
2002-04-19 05:19:18
admin@techillimit.net
There are currently 225 people browsing this site.


must be linked somewhere..

"If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." -- Lewis Carroll
#68 by Charles
2002-04-19 05:26:03
www.bluh.org
Either linked, or morn fucked up some php and it's not timing out unregistered users.

Bailey:  Beep beep, motherfucker.
#69 by Bailey
2002-04-19 05:43:06
crash

do you use cheats in single-player RPGs?

if not, why not?

Well, I do cheat, horrifically so, presumably some believe it would devalue my play experience to cheat through it. However, as I'm much happier just ingesting the story and scenery than slogging through the tenth orc cave just to level my guys up so they can survive later on, that's how I derive the most enjoyment from RPGs. No StatBuilder, I.

Oddly, on the other side of the coin, I've never even attempted a dupe or cheat in any of the GIPs since my first day in UO beta. I just didn't see the point, (though admittedly, hearing BlackSnow claim to pull in 60K USD a month sheds a bit more light on the "why do it?" factor) because I was never interested in "winning" the game. I've got much more of the explorer complex than anything else. And for those who do like to "win", I can only imagine how those people who invested all that time and effort into waking the Sleeper must've felt.

Stuck flat smack dab in the middle of a century with nothing to lose.
#70 by LPMiller
2002-04-19 05:47:53
lpmiller@gotapex.com http://www.gotapex.com
I just see 43 browsing...still, a lot of window shoppers.

Will warez for food.
#71 by Warren Marshall
2002-04-19 06:35:18
http://www.wantonhubris.com/
I see 212.  wtf?

I foresee a troll invasion ...

WoT?
#72 by HiredGoons
2002-04-19 06:40:21
I see 212.  wtf?

I foresee a troll invasion ...


A-hooooo-ga! A-hooooo-ga!

All hands on deck!  Batten the hatches!

Tuck in those pajamas!


DIVE DIVE DIVE!!!!
#73 by yotsuya
2002-04-19 06:40:27
Users Currently Online:
Slappy [Reading Topic: Why MMORPG item trading is not bad]
Warren Marshall [Reading Topic: Why MMORPG item trading is not bad]
yotsuya [Reading Topic: Why MMORPG item trading is not bad]
And 184 guests.


I'm just proud to be mentioned in the same breath as Warren and ... Slappy

Arizona Diamondbacks 2001 World Series Champions
#74 by Bailey
2002-04-19 07:12:56
It's apparently all about taking pride in the little things for which you have no responsibility... hurr.

Stuck flat smack dab in the middle of a century with nothing to lose.
#75 by Sgt Hulka
2002-04-19 09:47:43
Oh, I think a +12 Olsen Sword will earn WAY more than $300 on Ebay!

OT:
Today I was in the 2nd day of my battle with a swarm of them in the backyard. They are little terrorists! Wouldn't let me cut the grass under my crabapple tree, and I needed to put Scotts Lawn Care #1 down, so I HAD TO GET IT CUT! So I had to make a trip to the local hardware store, buy a can of that "Hornet-Away" stuff. Waited til dark, then sprayed the wood on the clubhouse where I thought they were coming from. The next day, they were back, and I swear one of them flipped me off! So, I let them bee (pardon the pun) for the day. That night, I went out with a flashlight and found the next. It was under the awning on the clubhouse. I soaked it good with the inceticide and today there was only two flying around instead of the 20 or so I saw the previous day. I've still got work today, and I'm thankful none of them have sucessfully landed a stinger in my ass yet. If you find a swarm of them, it's best to run, hide, and take care of them at night while they are sleeping. Unfortunately, it's too late for this guy. He was stung 100's of time by up to 10,000 wasps just a few days ago!

.....If You See Her Glow, It's Too Late!
#76 by Neale
2002-04-19 11:21:39
neale@pimurho.co.uk www.pimurho.co.uk
We just got a local fisherman to come and cyanide one of our many wasp nests (they use the wasp grub for bait). He stuck a small amount of cyanide on a spoon attached to a long stick and stuck it in the nest entrance. An hour later, there were dead wasps everywhere. Fantastic.

Another nest was dealt with in a bizarre way by my friend - first he stuck a hosepipe in the entrance and turned it on, followed by a couple of fireworks, then put a lawnmore on top and switched it on. Needless to say, I was watching from a great distance. This is the same friend that had a room full of bees in his house once, and I arrived to find him merrily sucking them into the vaccuum cleaner. He was certifiable, but funny to watch.

Eradicators! - www.eradicators.co.uk
#77 by Gunp01nt
2002-04-19 12:09:56
supersimon33@hotmail.com
I foresee a troll invasion ...

really? the question is... are you gonna pretend to stay on the good side or are you gonna show your true face and collaborate with the trolls?

Don't you wanna seize the day?
I wanna go back to reality
But I'm just addicted to stay
Guide me the way out of infinity
#78 by Gunp01nt
2002-04-19 12:38:45
supersimon33@hotmail.com
I propose an anti warez-topic rule for the submission bin.

Don't you wanna seize the day?
I wanna go back to reality
But I'm just addicted to stay
Guide me the way out of infinity
#79 by jjohnsen
2002-04-19 13:25:36
http://www.johnsenclan.com
You just have to convince everyone to vote no.

Warez is naughty, saving your game is a personal choice and the coffee was just too damn hot.
#80 by piramida
2002-04-19 13:34:28
Thanks to all with thoughtfull answers :) Many people missed the point - my fault, english is not my native language.

I am not trying to state that it's legally fine to ignore the EULA. I don't care about EULA simply because I am not interested in game companies position - as any government, they would ban anything even remotely morally questionable, only to unban it back later when they see black market booming and want to get their share of it. We'll see what happens first - legal pot or legal item trading; I think items would win, since Sims online (and that link in #9 is the first sign, thanks) is coming out. With SO, it'll be no longer kids spending parent's money and casual gamers spending hard-earned 10$. It'll be women who enjoy Sims spending money and I suppose it would be unstoppable.

Let's just forget about hacks for a moment as jafd suggests; it is next to impossible to show proof, and you don't want to believe my observations; fine. My position is that hacks are created by technically challenged hackers (doh!) with extra free time, and later used by players. Sure, traders and power-gamers are the first to learn about and use hacks - to stay competitive, but unlike power-levelers, traders are the group of people affected the most by hacks. They are always at risk of loosing all their belongings because of account hack; dropping prices because of the new dupe hack; etc - traders are trying their best to make the company fix their bugs ASAP. Stable environment is much more important to traders than to roleplayers. Sure, if some hack is spreading, trader has to use it or leave for another game, if you don't understand why, it's there in competition 101. Forget hacks, without facts we will be bending it there and back endlessly.

Now, there are people like crash (thanks for the answer btw, knowing your stance on this I expected a "yuo=fagot" post), who are purists, to whom every violation of self-imposed code of conduct is a blasphemy. They would seemingly never accept the right of power-gamers and traders to exist, and they can't understand how playing the game in a different way can be fun, fine, their right. Just tell me how it affects YOU and YOUR playing experience. Not that all people who are playing differently are idiots; it's not very productive. You never buy items, you get the most fun out of finding stuff yourself, why do you worry then? I fail to see.

I admit that after doing power-leveling and roleplaying (which are tons of fun if you do it right), I find trading the most addictive part of the game. In-game item trading world, usually, is VERY limited, not even speaking about how it is affected by inflation and game changes. It is very frustrating for a casual player wanting to purchase (in-game) items. No fixed prices (traders are making >1,000% on resale easily), scum and almost no protection, fear of being robbed. If legalized and adequately structured, in-game or out-of-game trading could: fix the prices, allow protection, get rid of the scum surrouding it. bago, #63, I very much agree with - it's there whether you like it or not. It's becoming stronger, hopefully will become legal, now how is it bad for YOU, not the company?

signatures are stupid.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Why MMORPG item trading is not bad

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (3) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]