www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Sex, drugs, and RMT
Prostitution is evil. Selling drugs is evil. Selling virtual currency (called real money trade or RMT) is evil. Some people live in a world of moral absolutes, which is most easily achieved by not thinking too closely about the issue. While there is a good argument to be made that the resignation of Eliot Spitzer over his prostitution affair is justified, it is harder to argue that the woman involved was evil. What if the man hadn't been married, and had paid for sex in a place where that wasn't illegal, would it still have been evil? And what about selling drugs? If I drive 2 hours from here in my car to the Netherlands I can visit a "coffee shop", which isn't selling coffee but cannabis totally legal. The guy selling the stuff is probably some old hippie, and there is no reason to consider him as evil.
On RMT I was a bit disappointed how the discussion about my recent gold-seller interview was limited to the question on whether one should talk about the subject at all or hush it up. The far more interesting question of the morality of it was pretty much ignored, because most people had a preformed opinion already and were unwilling to discuss in terms other than moral absolutes. So I'm asking again: Is gold-selling in itself evil? Or is it just the spamming, scamming, botting, and breaking of the EULA that is evil? Is somebody selling EQ2 currency on the SOE Station Exchange, where it is legal, still evil? Is somebody selling UO gold on EBay evil, again totally legal. What about virtual worlds without a game component, like Second Life, is selling virtual goods there evil? If selling gold isn't evil in games where it is allowed, then how "evil" is it to do it in a game where the EULA forbids it, compared to other intellectual property crimes like file-sharing? Does all virtual currency really belong to the game company, and do they have the right to tell you what you can do with it? You see, once you start digging a bit deeper, and to actually *think*, there is room for discussion about the morality of RMT.
I admit that the interview wasn't perfect. I didn't have access to the "Tobold's MMORPG Blog" company jet to fly over to the states and interview Chris Bottomly face-to-face. By sending him all my questions in one bunch I missed the opportunity to ask him further questions based on the answers he gave. And some people accused me of having been too soft, which was due to me not wanting to scare him off. But all is not lost: Chris is willing to answer more questions if you guys can come up with a couple of good ones. So this is your chance to learn more about the RMT business from inside: Simply post here in the comments section what question(s) you would have asked when interviewing a gold seller. Obviously if your question is downright insulting or delving too deeply into the commercial secrets of the company, Chris won't answer them. But if you thought that in principal it is okay to interview someone from the RMT industry and just would have liked a different set of questions, maybe together we can design the questions for a second interview. So, what would you ask him?
- posted by Tobold @ 8:21 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
Prostitution is evil. Selling drugs is evil. Selling virtual currency (called real money trade or RMT) is evil. Some people live in a world of moral absolutes, which is most easily achieved by not thinking too closely about the issue.
Strawman.
I've participated in my share of debates about this issue, but I don't recall any comparisons to selling drugs or prostitution. I don't remember the word EVIL being tossed around either.
And you could have conducted the interview without mentioning the name of the company.
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
Back in the days, before Lineage 2 or so the RMT industry was relatively small scale. A great lot of the more prominent EQ players were using their access to resources for making a bit of money. Thereby motivating the hardcoreish playing style which was required to generate value.
At some point relatively recently it has become totally impossible for westerners to compete in this market. Even the most hardcore of the hardcore will never find a paycheck from WoW RMT which has a chance to compete with a part time job flipping burgers. The oldskool RMT pro used to scan the possibility space of the game for any advantage, which always resulted in improved profit. Today there is no advantage great enough to counter the low production costs of the RMT sweatshops.
I dont think using the tag evil is appropriate to this situation. Its just a common tag anyone is likely to use when the source of something that might seem like a problem is at a large enough social distance. However the RMT industry has changed the western worlds perspective of what virtual worlds could become. It used to be a type of RMT goldrush to new promising game which was driven by westerners. Today the westerners are not even part of the loop, except for a tiny few who are distribution channels for the sweatshop factories.
Maybe its really healthy. The risk of having people get the illusion that you can make a living out of playing mmorpg's without needing to go win the "e-sport" type of competition is eliminted. But you also get the negative effects of knowing that all you do while playing cost more than it possibly could pay back. (With the exception of the dude selling his dual twinblade rogue for a lot of money, but that is like winning a lottery rather than playing well.)
There was some comfort in the feeling that back in the early days of EQ the potential RMT value of your character was far greater than the cost of the box+payed subscriptions. Even if you never intended to cash in this helped as a motivating factor.
In this light RMT isnt evil, but the exploitation of RMT reduce the quality of the hobby for everyone.
At some point relatively recently it has become totally impossible for westerners to compete in this market. Even the most hardcore of the hardcore will never find a paycheck from WoW RMT which has a chance to compete with a part time job flipping burgers. The oldskool RMT pro used to scan the possibility space of the game for any advantage, which always resulted in improved profit. Today there is no advantage great enough to counter the low production costs of the RMT sweatshops.
I dont think using the tag evil is appropriate to this situation. Its just a common tag anyone is likely to use when the source of something that might seem like a problem is at a large enough social distance. However the RMT industry has changed the western worlds perspective of what virtual worlds could become. It used to be a type of RMT goldrush to new promising game which was driven by westerners. Today the westerners are not even part of the loop, except for a tiny few who are distribution channels for the sweatshop factories.
Maybe its really healthy. The risk of having people get the illusion that you can make a living out of playing mmorpg's without needing to go win the "e-sport" type of competition is eliminted. But you also get the negative effects of knowing that all you do while playing cost more than it possibly could pay back. (With the exception of the dude selling his dual twinblade rogue for a lot of money, but that is like winning a lottery rather than playing well.)
There was some comfort in the feeling that back in the early days of EQ the potential RMT value of your character was far greater than the cost of the box+payed subscriptions. Even if you never intended to cash in this helped as a motivating factor.
In this light RMT isnt evil, but the exploitation of RMT reduce the quality of the hobby for everyone.
# posted by 
: 13/3/08 09:39
: 13/3/08 09:39
Evil or not Evil is only a point of view.
If you think about an asian gold farmer who must work more than 12 hours a day to only be able to eat correctly (it is only a example certainly not corresponding to the reality but it could be that bad for some).
Do you think in this case what they are doing is evil ?
In the same way, the man/woman who run the company and profit from all those workers to have lots of real money. Thinking this way is it evil ?
It is never easy to define something evil as it depend from your culture and from who you are speaking to also.
Your other point about legality is easyer as legality only depend of the country laws, there is no possible (theorically) interpretation of the law.
Then at last, what you are speaking about is morality because morality is a question of evilness and laws.
Morality is what people think they will do if they were the only one to decide what to do AND there was nobody to criticism what they did do.
If you think about an asian gold farmer who must work more than 12 hours a day to only be able to eat correctly (it is only a example certainly not corresponding to the reality but it could be that bad for some).
Do you think in this case what they are doing is evil ?
In the same way, the man/woman who run the company and profit from all those workers to have lots of real money. Thinking this way is it evil ?
It is never easy to define something evil as it depend from your culture and from who you are speaking to also.
Your other point about legality is easyer as legality only depend of the country laws, there is no possible (theorically) interpretation of the law.
Then at last, what you are speaking about is morality because morality is a question of evilness and laws.
Morality is what people think they will do if they were the only one to decide what to do AND there was nobody to criticism what they did do.
# posted by : 13/3/08 09:47
: 13/3/08 09:47
It's all a shade of grey, but the problem with your interview was that it read a lot like an advertisement, with him detailing all the ways that his company was the best on the web for buying gold and all the others would lead to your account stripped and your credit cards stolen.
It it had been anonymous, without mentioning who he worked for it would have been a lot more credible.
It it had been anonymous, without mentioning who he worked for it would have been a lot more credible.
# posted by : 13/3/08 10:35
: 13/3/08 10:35Prostitution is evil. Selling drugs is evil. Selling virtual currency (called real money trade or RMT) is evil. Some people live in a world of moral absolutes, which is most easily achieved by not thinking too closely about the issue.
Strawman.
I've participated in my share of debates about this issue, but I don't recall any comparisons to selling drugs or prostitution. I don't remember the word EVIL being tossed around either.
And you could have conducted the interview without mentioning the name of the company.
# posted by : 13/3/08 10:59
: 13/3/08 10:59
The question of morality is, in my honest opinion, pointless.
RMT is perfectly acceptable in environments which include it as part of their provided features.
It is however perfectly unacceptable in environments which prohibit it, among other reasons because of the effects it has on the economy, the griefing, spamming and hacking which goes with it.
If I go playing Eve Online or meander in Second Life, RMT is part of the offered features, and if I don't like that part, nobody forces me to participate but engaging in a campaign against it in these environments is stupid - it's part of the advertised features so if I don't like it, I should rather play a different game.
But when I play WoW, the TOS clearly prohibit RMT, and therefore it is part of my own service contract with Blizzard to expect them to do everything in their powers to keep the game RMT-free.
There's no debate about the inherent moral value of RMT. There are service contracts, and people who break them, and that act is objectionable.
RMT is perfectly acceptable in environments which include it as part of their provided features.
It is however perfectly unacceptable in environments which prohibit it, among other reasons because of the effects it has on the economy, the griefing, spamming and hacking which goes with it.
If I go playing Eve Online or meander in Second Life, RMT is part of the offered features, and if I don't like that part, nobody forces me to participate but engaging in a campaign against it in these environments is stupid - it's part of the advertised features so if I don't like it, I should rather play a different game.
But when I play WoW, the TOS clearly prohibit RMT, and therefore it is part of my own service contract with Blizzard to expect them to do everything in their powers to keep the game RMT-free.
There's no debate about the inherent moral value of RMT. There are service contracts, and people who break them, and that act is objectionable.
It's like driving to fast on an empty road.., it's prohibited, but since noone is affected, noone could care less.
Trouble starts when accidents happen, and people are effected by the noise and filth the cars bring with them....
To avoid accidents and making rules noone understands it's just prohibited....
And yes, thus it sounds stupid that someone who is driving to fast on an empty road, as straight as he possibly can, without alcohol, in a car which has almost a positive influence on the environment, because he has to bring his wife to the hospital for the delivery of a baby still gets a ticket!!!
Just can't have it all;)
PS questions to the goldseller:
Do your employees earn more than minimum wage? Are they well insured? What measurements does the company take to improve the WoW community? (i.e. f.e. You buy gold, how do you know it's not from a hacked account? What information do you give to your customers to avoid them being the victim of compromising of accounts?) Which other goldselling company's would you consider 'good'?(to avoid the pointing advertisement fingers, you should name a few more company's ;)
Would you like to sit down with Blizzard to think of a way to improve eachothers business? In your view, would this impact the gameplay we know of WoW?
What kind of car do you drive? What kind of house do you live in?
Do you play WoW yourself?
How many level 60/70 characters do you have? Do you have any raiding experience?
Any other hobbies?
Do you drink and drive? Do you generally speed?
Trouble starts when accidents happen, and people are effected by the noise and filth the cars bring with them....
To avoid accidents and making rules noone understands it's just prohibited....
And yes, thus it sounds stupid that someone who is driving to fast on an empty road, as straight as he possibly can, without alcohol, in a car which has almost a positive influence on the environment, because he has to bring his wife to the hospital for the delivery of a baby still gets a ticket!!!
Just can't have it all;)
PS questions to the goldseller:
Do your employees earn more than minimum wage? Are they well insured? What measurements does the company take to improve the WoW community? (i.e. f.e. You buy gold, how do you know it's not from a hacked account? What information do you give to your customers to avoid them being the victim of compromising of accounts?) Which other goldselling company's would you consider 'good'?(to avoid the pointing advertisement fingers, you should name a few more company's ;)
Would you like to sit down with Blizzard to think of a way to improve eachothers business? In your view, would this impact the gameplay we know of WoW?
What kind of car do you drive? What kind of house do you live in?
Do you play WoW yourself?
How many level 60/70 characters do you have? Do you have any raiding experience?
Any other hobbies?
Do you drink and drive? Do you generally speed?
# posted by : 13/3/08 13:05
: 13/3/08 13:05
I would simply like his opinion on how the gold-generating activities of RMT companies negatively affects the gameplay for people who are just trying to play the game .. complete a quest or buy a needed item from the AH at something less than an RMT-inflated price, or simply trying to farm some items for themselves for crafting or resale to afford a flying mount.
# posted by : 13/3/08 13:54
: 13/3/08 13:54
You're so right about the world being conducted in absolutes. There's a lack of nuance in discussion or debate, at least in public channels. Blogs are generally better than mainstream media because people who bother to read and comment on blogs are usually interested in conversation, not expounding their own viewpoint to the exclusion of other viewpoints as well.
I usually blame the American education system for the inability to evaluate two conflicting viewpoints, and perhaps see a grain of truth in each, but maybe it's a worldwide phenomenon.
We've spent so much of our history making sure we followed the right religion, or the right leader, the right country, even the right sports team...a little plurality and inclusive debate wouldn't kill us. Unless you believe Fox News...maybe considering an opposing viewpoint without vilifying it really does let the terrorists win ;)
I usually blame the American education system for the inability to evaluate two conflicting viewpoints, and perhaps see a grain of truth in each, but maybe it's a worldwide phenomenon.
We've spent so much of our history making sure we followed the right religion, or the right leader, the right country, even the right sports team...a little plurality and inclusive debate wouldn't kill us. Unless you believe Fox News...maybe considering an opposing viewpoint without vilifying it really does let the terrorists win ;)
# posted by : 13/3/08 14:59
: 13/3/08 14:59
Questions for Chris:
* How do you go about acquiring your gold?
* Do you take steps to ensure that your gold is not being acquired through illicit means (ie. hacked accounts)? If so, what do you do to ensure your gold isn't tainted?
* You spoke of being sued for “malpractice,” but isn’t that a bit of a misnomer? To be frank, how can your customers be certain that MOGS is, in fact, only using “legal” means to acquire its gold? How would we know if you were or were not using hacked accounts, bots, leveling characters, and the like, as you claim? There isn’t a US statute covering “malpractice” for gold-sellers, as far as I’m aware, so realistically, what recourse would a gamer have if he/she believed you were engaging in the same practices Chinese farmers apparently engage in?
* You said that you’re “not in the business of making everyone agree with [you],” but surely you have to admit that the sale of gold causes at least some inflationary pressure on every character in the game – pressure that hits hardest on those that don’t use your services. Given the questionable nature of gold-selling and the arguably adverse effects (ie. inflation) it has on the economy of a game, do you take steps to mitigate the impact of your flood of currency? If so, what?
* Given the poor reputation that gold-sellers have, do you take any steps to give back to the gaming community (be it WOW, EVE, EQ, or whatever) or make a better reputation for yourself?
* The overall morality of gold-selling notwithstanding, how do you justify providing a service (gold-selling) that is specifically prohibited by the terms of service of particular games?
I’ll try to post some thoughts about the morality question later.
And thanks for the interview, Tobold (and Chris). Your detractors notwithstanding, I think RMT is too big of an issue to ignore.
* How do you go about acquiring your gold?
* Do you take steps to ensure that your gold is not being acquired through illicit means (ie. hacked accounts)? If so, what do you do to ensure your gold isn't tainted?
* You spoke of being sued for “malpractice,” but isn’t that a bit of a misnomer? To be frank, how can your customers be certain that MOGS is, in fact, only using “legal” means to acquire its gold? How would we know if you were or were not using hacked accounts, bots, leveling characters, and the like, as you claim? There isn’t a US statute covering “malpractice” for gold-sellers, as far as I’m aware, so realistically, what recourse would a gamer have if he/she believed you were engaging in the same practices Chinese farmers apparently engage in?
* You said that you’re “not in the business of making everyone agree with [you],” but surely you have to admit that the sale of gold causes at least some inflationary pressure on every character in the game – pressure that hits hardest on those that don’t use your services. Given the questionable nature of gold-selling and the arguably adverse effects (ie. inflation) it has on the economy of a game, do you take steps to mitigate the impact of your flood of currency? If so, what?
* Given the poor reputation that gold-sellers have, do you take any steps to give back to the gaming community (be it WOW, EVE, EQ, or whatever) or make a better reputation for yourself?
* The overall morality of gold-selling notwithstanding, how do you justify providing a service (gold-selling) that is specifically prohibited by the terms of service of particular games?
I’ll try to post some thoughts about the morality question later.
And thanks for the interview, Tobold (and Chris). Your detractors notwithstanding, I think RMT is too big of an issue to ignore.
Do I see RMT as evil? For the most part, no.
Hacking accounts to fund the gold they sell? Yes, causing the intentional suffering of another for self gain is evil.
Spamming and other acts to harass the players? No, I've seen far more annoying and distracting crap come from other players themselves.
The actual act of selling gold itself? Not evil, but it is cheating, which is why I don't approve of it.
As others have stated it's be cause RMT is not aloud in WoW is the reason I don't approve of it. Personally I don't find the idea a very sound one in general, but I won't complain if someone engages in it on those games.
The fact is it makes the game unbalanced, if everyone buys gold, then everyone HAS to buy gold. If that is the game the developers want then that's their choice. But when they are trying to make a balanced game and others are undermining that, well then there is a problem.
As for including the name of the company for the gold seller, big deal, those who would buy gold already have and this blog will change little. That being said I would rather more people would go through US based companies for the same reasons the article stated. Just like the clean needles program for drug users. We might not approve of their illegal activity (wither government law or ToS) but at least we can encourage them to be responsible and safe about it.
Hacking accounts to fund the gold they sell? Yes, causing the intentional suffering of another for self gain is evil.
Spamming and other acts to harass the players? No, I've seen far more annoying and distracting crap come from other players themselves.
The actual act of selling gold itself? Not evil, but it is cheating, which is why I don't approve of it.
As others have stated it's be cause RMT is not aloud in WoW is the reason I don't approve of it. Personally I don't find the idea a very sound one in general, but I won't complain if someone engages in it on those games.
The fact is it makes the game unbalanced, if everyone buys gold, then everyone HAS to buy gold. If that is the game the developers want then that's their choice. But when they are trying to make a balanced game and others are undermining that, well then there is a problem.
As for including the name of the company for the gold seller, big deal, those who would buy gold already have and this blog will change little. That being said I would rather more people would go through US based companies for the same reasons the article stated. Just like the clean needles program for drug users. We might not approve of their illegal activity (wither government law or ToS) but at least we can encourage them to be responsible and safe about it.
Tobold - since Chris is willing to answer more questions and you're willing to ask them, what about setting up a moderated online chat session?
I think the biggest problem with RMT is that it is considered cheating. In my opinion THAT is just an opinion. It is a game that is about having fun and there are no winners and losers in WoW, so if RMT helps you have fun then so be it.
Using the word "evil" is also tricky, to me that means immoral or against my moral code. The dictionary says morally reprehensible. So it all comes down to your view on the world.
Using the word "evil" is also tricky, to me that means immoral or against my moral code. The dictionary says morally reprehensible. So it all comes down to your view on the world.
# posted by : 13/3/08 16:03
: 13/3/08 16:03
Also I would like to add that I dont think RMT gives you anymore of an advantage than say a raider who raids 4 nights a week, or a PVPr who PVPs 7days a week, so shall we ban excessive play times as well? Is this considered evil? If I were honest with myself I resent people who can afford several hours a day more than I do the person who buys gold!
# posted by : 13/3/08 16:06
: 13/3/08 16:06
I think a lot of the "RMT is wrong!" talk is due to a misunderstanding of the difference between an MMO and other "competitive" games.
Coming from an FPS backrgound, or a Starcraft/Warcraft 3 background, many players may have viewed WoW as a similarly competitive game (even though it is a quite different animal). In Counterstrike, it would clearly break the game if you could spend money to buy extra perks like damage shields or superguns. In SC, if you could pay money to get "MORE VESPENE GAS", then the game would be broken, because those games are designed around players starting from scratch at the same point, and having only their skill and knowledge to differentiate them.
However, MMORPGs in the WoW type are totally different. They are built around creating persistent inequality. At any given moment, every person in the game is starting from a different power level, based almost solely on how much time they have put into the game (strategizing about the best way to use your time, and playing well so as to use your time effectively, are factors, but nothing has the same influence as raw time spent).
So in previous competitive games, RMT would have been a terrible idea, so a stigma against it developed. But in an uneven game like WoW, RMT would simply serve as another avenue to advantage, alongside time spent. So I think that a lot of the opposition to RMT comes from a failure by some people to realize the fundamental differences between WoW and previous competitive games.
My site
Coming from an FPS backrgound, or a Starcraft/Warcraft 3 background, many players may have viewed WoW as a similarly competitive game (even though it is a quite different animal). In Counterstrike, it would clearly break the game if you could spend money to buy extra perks like damage shields or superguns. In SC, if you could pay money to get "MORE VESPENE GAS", then the game would be broken, because those games are designed around players starting from scratch at the same point, and having only their skill and knowledge to differentiate them.
However, MMORPGs in the WoW type are totally different. They are built around creating persistent inequality. At any given moment, every person in the game is starting from a different power level, based almost solely on how much time they have put into the game (strategizing about the best way to use your time, and playing well so as to use your time effectively, are factors, but nothing has the same influence as raw time spent).
So in previous competitive games, RMT would have been a terrible idea, so a stigma against it developed. But in an uneven game like WoW, RMT would simply serve as another avenue to advantage, alongside time spent. So I think that a lot of the opposition to RMT comes from a failure by some people to realize the fundamental differences between WoW and previous competitive games.
My site
Tobold - since Chris is willing to answer more questions and you're willing to ask them, what about setting up a moderated online chat session?
Not a medium I feel comfortable with, especially in view of different time zones.
And you could have conducted the interview without mentioning the name of the company.
No, I couldn't. First of all the name of the company and 1 link to it proves that I didn't invent the interview and Chris is real. Second that link was the price I was willing to pay in exchange for the interview.
Frankly, if I read an interview with "Anonymous, from unnamed company", it has far less credibility than a person with a name coming from a company with a name.
And as I said before, if any mention and link to any gold-selling site hurts your eyes, then how are you surfing the net for information on WoW? All the big sites like Thottbot or WoWInsider, and many blogs, even some guild sites, are running gold selling ads.
Not a medium I feel comfortable with, especially in view of different time zones.
And you could have conducted the interview without mentioning the name of the company.
No, I couldn't. First of all the name of the company and 1 link to it proves that I didn't invent the interview and Chris is real. Second that link was the price I was willing to pay in exchange for the interview.
Frankly, if I read an interview with "Anonymous, from unnamed company", it has far less credibility than a person with a name coming from a company with a name.
And as I said before, if any mention and link to any gold-selling site hurts your eyes, then how are you surfing the net for information on WoW? All the big sites like Thottbot or WoWInsider, and many blogs, even some guild sites, are running gold selling ads.
Sweatshops, for any reason are evil, based on the poor treatment of their workers. The publicity of overseas gold farming sweatshops has lead to the stereotype that RMT is evil.
Account hacking (virtual identity theft) for the purpose of generating gold gor RMT could be considered evil, if you believe that theft of any sort is evil.
Is RMT evil, no. Consider the following:
RMT, is (in its current state) the RL equivolent of a pyramid scheme. Only those at the top benefit most. The people who actually do most of the work (farming/hacking) recieve some benefit, albeit not much in comparison with the effort involved. Those at the bottom (the consumers) are blatantly taken advantage of (paying money for the promise of something that in actuality doesn't even exist, with the added risk of keyloggers/trojans just by visiting some RMT sites). Treat the RMT industry as you would any other pyramid scheme.
RMT is virtual capitalism. As long as it's not explicitly illegal, anything goes.
The legality of RMT and WoW may eventually come down to answering the question (which I'd like to hear Chris answer): Is WoW gold legitimate intellectual property, and is the sale of said property (expressly forbidden by the EULA) illegal?
If the answer is no, then wouldnt Blizzard be entitled to sue for a portion (if not all) of the revenues generated using their software without their consent?
If the answer to the above question is yes, would it be worth the cost and effort to do so?
Blizzard is a business, in the end it all comes down to dollars and cents. I believe that they have the best approach possible for them at this point, which is: Saying no to RMT, and projecting the appearance of taking action against it, to please all of the 'RMT = EVIL' crowd so thay keep paying their $15.
Allowing RMT to continue, but banning accounts being used to farm gold, to increase 'box sales' and maintain the farmer's subscriptions.
This likely adds up to the most projected profit/customer satisfaction for them.
Account hacking (virtual identity theft) for the purpose of generating gold gor RMT could be considered evil, if you believe that theft of any sort is evil.
Is RMT evil, no. Consider the following:
RMT, is (in its current state) the RL equivolent of a pyramid scheme. Only those at the top benefit most. The people who actually do most of the work (farming/hacking) recieve some benefit, albeit not much in comparison with the effort involved. Those at the bottom (the consumers) are blatantly taken advantage of (paying money for the promise of something that in actuality doesn't even exist, with the added risk of keyloggers/trojans just by visiting some RMT sites). Treat the RMT industry as you would any other pyramid scheme.
RMT is virtual capitalism. As long as it's not explicitly illegal, anything goes.
The legality of RMT and WoW may eventually come down to answering the question (which I'd like to hear Chris answer): Is WoW gold legitimate intellectual property, and is the sale of said property (expressly forbidden by the EULA) illegal?
If the answer is no, then wouldnt Blizzard be entitled to sue for a portion (if not all) of the revenues generated using their software without their consent?
If the answer to the above question is yes, would it be worth the cost and effort to do so?
Blizzard is a business, in the end it all comes down to dollars and cents. I believe that they have the best approach possible for them at this point, which is: Saying no to RMT, and projecting the appearance of taking action against it, to please all of the 'RMT = EVIL' crowd so thay keep paying their $15.
Allowing RMT to continue, but banning accounts being used to farm gold, to increase 'box sales' and maintain the farmer's subscriptions.
This likely adds up to the most projected profit/customer satisfaction for them.
I don't remember the word EVIL being tossed around either.
No, what was tossed around is the idea that RMT is so [insert your favorite term here] that my blog should not be allowed to advertise it, mention companies involved with it, or reprint the words of one of its representatives. Whether you favorite term for that is "evil" or "damaging to the world of MMORPGs" or "spoiling my fun" doesn't really matter, that is only semantics. The important part is that some people believe the subject to be taboo, which for the sake of free speech I can't accept.
No, what was tossed around is the idea that RMT is so [insert your favorite term here] that my blog should not be allowed to advertise it, mention companies involved with it, or reprint the words of one of its representatives. Whether you favorite term for that is "evil" or "damaging to the world of MMORPGs" or "spoiling my fun" doesn't really matter, that is only semantics. The important part is that some people believe the subject to be taboo, which for the sake of free speech I can't accept.
Better to ask, who is the victim? In prostitution or the illicit drug trade, the only "victims" of the crime are those that bring it upon themselves. It's easy to say that these activities are not illegal or immoral because the victims participate in the crime.
But what about theft? What about extortion or embezzlement? Or price fixing? These are crimes in which the victims did not choose to participate and and the problem was inflicted upon them by someone else. In this sense, that makes them far more "wrong" than a victimless crime.
Likewise, RMT is not a victimless activity and the victims don't choose to participate. We are victims not in the sense that we must compete against the purchasers of RMT. We compete in the AH, we compete against epic flyers who can gather nodes faster, we compete in lots of different ways.
The victims hit the hardest from "gold selling" are the ones who get thier accounts hacked for the Gold. One thing to always remember about gold selling is that the source of the gold is rarely a legitimate player who just happens to have an extra 1000 gold to sell for $17. Companies who purchase gold enable players to do these activities.
The argument is very similar to the "drug selling" scenario where their is significant theft that is directly linked to drug users needing to finance the habit.
But what about theft? What about extortion or embezzlement? Or price fixing? These are crimes in which the victims did not choose to participate and and the problem was inflicted upon them by someone else. In this sense, that makes them far more "wrong" than a victimless crime.
Likewise, RMT is not a victimless activity and the victims don't choose to participate. We are victims not in the sense that we must compete against the purchasers of RMT. We compete in the AH, we compete against epic flyers who can gather nodes faster, we compete in lots of different ways.
The victims hit the hardest from "gold selling" are the ones who get thier accounts hacked for the Gold. One thing to always remember about gold selling is that the source of the gold is rarely a legitimate player who just happens to have an extra 1000 gold to sell for $17. Companies who purchase gold enable players to do these activities.
The argument is very similar to the "drug selling" scenario where their is significant theft that is directly linked to drug users needing to finance the habit.
Does the end justify the means? In the current RMT market, legal or illegal, it does not. Exploitation, spamming, botting, cheating, and any number of "evil" activities have risen with the RMT market. Whether it is allowed in a game or not, the externalities of it even existing far outweigh any neutrality that could be argued.
Exploitation, spamming, botting, cheating, and any number of "evil" activities have risen with the RMT market.
In a similar way evil activities have risen with the market in moonshine alcohol during the prohibition. Ending prohibition ended the evil activities, because now legit people could sell alcohol.
This is exactly why the question whether RMT is bad in itself or only due to secondary evils is important. If RMT by itself is not evil, then the SOE solution of making it legit is acceptable. If RMT by itself is bad, legalizing it isn't an option.
In a similar way evil activities have risen with the market in moonshine alcohol during the prohibition. Ending prohibition ended the evil activities, because now legit people could sell alcohol.
This is exactly why the question whether RMT is bad in itself or only due to secondary evils is important. If RMT by itself is not evil, then the SOE solution of making it legit is acceptable. If RMT by itself is bad, legalizing it isn't an option.
While I do consider the side-effects of RMT (inflation, hacking, spamming etc) to be detrimental to the game, focusing on just those is beside the point.
Blizzard's EULA says that everything on their server is theirs. Selling something you don't own (or have the owner's permission to sell) is evil or at least criminal. So in that sense RMT in WoW is bad. It's no more legal than selling other stolen property.
However, there's the obvious question of whether the EULA has the legal force of a contract. There hasn't been many challenges to the validity of the EULA, because it's the only thing that gives you the right to play the game in the first place. If you void the EULA, you also void your license to play. So either you play by Blizzard's rules, or you don't play at all.
So here's a few questions for Chris Bottomly:
Does he consider the WoW EULA (including the Terms of Service and other similar documents) to be a legally enforceable contract (in whole or in part)?
If not, why?
If yes, does he think that some parts of it can remain valid if others are voided, or would the entire EULA be null and void? If yes, why?
In the absence of an EULA, would he consider his business to be legitimate?
Blizzard's EULA says that everything on their server is theirs. Selling something you don't own (or have the owner's permission to sell) is evil or at least criminal. So in that sense RMT in WoW is bad. It's no more legal than selling other stolen property.
However, there's the obvious question of whether the EULA has the legal force of a contract. There hasn't been many challenges to the validity of the EULA, because it's the only thing that gives you the right to play the game in the first place. If you void the EULA, you also void your license to play. So either you play by Blizzard's rules, or you don't play at all.
So here's a few questions for Chris Bottomly:
Does he consider the WoW EULA (including the Terms of Service and other similar documents) to be a legally enforceable contract (in whole or in part)?
If not, why?
If yes, does he think that some parts of it can remain valid if others are voided, or would the entire EULA be null and void? If yes, why?
In the absence of an EULA, would he consider his business to be legitimate?
I assume when you say "evil" you are meaning that something is on the opposite side of your particular moral stance.
I have a particular problem with your assumption that when someone takes a hard stance on an issue, either sex, drugs, or RMT, they have not thought about the issue. Your comparison with legality is independant of morals. Laws change between countries and morals can change between individuals. That does not mean that an individual cannot define and maintain their own moral standards.
As you have said in the past, your own views are quite soft on RMT. You don't do it, but don't throw those that do under the bus. If I misrepresent your words, please correct. However, it does not mean that those who are not so flexible in the moral objections to RMT will arrive at your current state of thinking if they simply think about things more.
You are correct that people often get too emotional on such a silly issue, but it does not invalidate their position.
I have a particular problem with your assumption that when someone takes a hard stance on an issue, either sex, drugs, or RMT, they have not thought about the issue. Your comparison with legality is independant of morals. Laws change between countries and morals can change between individuals. That does not mean that an individual cannot define and maintain their own moral standards.
As you have said in the past, your own views are quite soft on RMT. You don't do it, but don't throw those that do under the bus. If I misrepresent your words, please correct. However, it does not mean that those who are not so flexible in the moral objections to RMT will arrive at your current state of thinking if they simply think about things more.
You are correct that people often get too emotional on such a silly issue, but it does not invalidate their position.
# posted by : 13/3/08 18:13
: 13/3/08 18:13
In a similar way evil activities have risen with the market in moonshine alcohol during the prohibition. Ending prohibition ended the evil activities, because now legit people could sell alcohol.
This is exactly why the question whether RMT is bad in itself or only due to secondary evils is important. If RMT by itself is not evil, then the SOE solution of making it legit is acceptable.
Different example based on the "RMT is inevitable, you should lift the prohibition to remove the collateral effects" notion:
Doping is widespread in pro sports. Since cheating among sportsmen is inevitable, why don't we just legalize doping?
Doesn't sound as good, does it?
Now just as there is at least a country where you can smoke pot legally in coffee shops, there are virtual worlds which will allow RMT, and ideally will have been designed to take it into account, just like we have the Netherlands. Cross the border though and what you do is not acceptable. Same with virtual worlds.
It's Blizzard's property. If the EULA were not valid, you have no service contract, in other terms, no right to play the game. If a court were to toss out the anti-RMT portion of the EULA, it couldn't force Blizzard to accept RMT in the game, all they could claim is a refund of their monthly fees for services not provided. So the whole "EULAs haven't been tested in courts" is a red herring.
Remember this: No court can force you to do business with someone you do not want to do business with. You can get a refund, you can get financial compensation if the other party has clearly defrauded you, but you can't force them to do business with you. A contract is a mutual agreement between two parties in which both must have something to gain. Absent this there is no contract, no EULA, and no right to play on Blizzard's servers. Simple as that.
This is exactly why the question whether RMT is bad in itself or only due to secondary evils is important. If RMT by itself is not evil, then the SOE solution of making it legit is acceptable.
Different example based on the "RMT is inevitable, you should lift the prohibition to remove the collateral effects" notion:
Doping is widespread in pro sports. Since cheating among sportsmen is inevitable, why don't we just legalize doping?
Doesn't sound as good, does it?
Now just as there is at least a country where you can smoke pot legally in coffee shops, there are virtual worlds which will allow RMT, and ideally will have been designed to take it into account, just like we have the Netherlands. Cross the border though and what you do is not acceptable. Same with virtual worlds.
It's Blizzard's property. If the EULA were not valid, you have no service contract, in other terms, no right to play the game. If a court were to toss out the anti-RMT portion of the EULA, it couldn't force Blizzard to accept RMT in the game, all they could claim is a refund of their monthly fees for services not provided. So the whole "EULAs haven't been tested in courts" is a red herring.
Remember this: No court can force you to do business with someone you do not want to do business with. You can get a refund, you can get financial compensation if the other party has clearly defrauded you, but you can't force them to do business with you. A contract is a mutual agreement between two parties in which both must have something to gain. Absent this there is no contract, no EULA, and no right to play on Blizzard's servers. Simple as that.
# posted by : 13/3/08 19:13
: 13/3/08 19:13
But that is not my argument. I'm not saying "legalize RMT". I'm asking the people who are against RMT to give arguments why RMT is bad (like doping) and not harmless enough (like alcohol). What annoys me is that the people who are against RMT often just say it's bad, or cite the secondary effects, and argue what is so bad about RMT. If RMT is as bad as doping, I'm all for suppressing it, although preferably by game design and not ineffective bannings. But WHY is it as bad as doping?
Thats interesting...becuase I dont follow the UELA but I still play WoW, amazing!
Also if you read what Tobold says you will realize he isnt saying lift the ban becuase everyones doing it. What he is doing is asking the question " Is it wrong only becuase of the rule or is it really wrong?" There is no right or wrong answer here.
Personally I dont think RMT is wrong, however lifting the ban could potentially make the problem worse not better because then even more people would be buying gold, and more of it, right?
Also if you read what Tobold says you will realize he isnt saying lift the ban becuase everyones doing it. What he is doing is asking the question " Is it wrong only becuase of the rule or is it really wrong?" There is no right or wrong answer here.
Personally I dont think RMT is wrong, however lifting the ban could potentially make the problem worse not better because then even more people would be buying gold, and more of it, right?
# posted by : 13/3/08 20:04
: 13/3/08 20:04
And I answered his question. RMT is wrong because it is not victimless. Someone gains at the expense of others. The victims are in no way participating in the act, only being penalized for it. There are very clear winners and losers and it’s no different than the harm that is caused by price fixing. That is what makes it inherently wrong.
Clearly Tobold doesn’t think the “wrong” that is inflicted upon the players who don’t participate in RMT is serious enough to warrant being critical of RMT. After all, just little wrong spread amongst lots of people isn’t that big a deal, right? I would argue that it’s still serious and the problem is further amplified by the fact that it’s not just one person committing the wrong and that hundreds of people doing it makes a very big impact indeed.
Ironically, I think the so-called legal RMT is worse than RMT created by botting and farming. The reason is simple: At least botting creates goods in the AH that have a deflationary effect. Legalized RMT simply creates *net new* resources into the market without the counterbalance of the deflation. The result is a far greater inflationary pressure than would otherwise be seen under a typical bot-farmed scenario.
Clearly Tobold doesn’t think the “wrong” that is inflicted upon the players who don’t participate in RMT is serious enough to warrant being critical of RMT. After all, just little wrong spread amongst lots of people isn’t that big a deal, right? I would argue that it’s still serious and the problem is further amplified by the fact that it’s not just one person committing the wrong and that hundreds of people doing it makes a very big impact indeed.
Ironically, I think the so-called legal RMT is worse than RMT created by botting and farming. The reason is simple: At least botting creates goods in the AH that have a deflationary effect. Legalized RMT simply creates *net new* resources into the market without the counterbalance of the deflation. The result is a far greater inflationary pressure than would otherwise be seen under a typical bot-farmed scenario.
To Sid....well first of all I was really responding to gwaendar but anways I still dont think you are seeing toblolds points, to me is one: free speech allows me talk about RMT and I think its silly to suggest otherwise (even if it is "evil" and 2: If RMT was legal you probably wouldnt consider it "evil"
Now its easy to say now that you disagree with point 2,however, imagine a world where WoW always had legal RMT. I think most peoples opinions would be much different than they are now.
Also I think I agree with you on the legal RMT I belive legal RMT could potentially cause more harm than solve problems. However it might be considered less "evil".
Now its easy to say now that you disagree with point 2,however, imagine a world where WoW always had legal RMT. I think most peoples opinions would be much different than they are now.
Also I think I agree with you on the legal RMT I belive legal RMT could potentially cause more harm than solve problems. However it might be considered less "evil".
# posted by : 13/3/08 21:36
: 13/3/08 21:36
I'll set aside the malum prohibitum/malum in se discussion for a moment to focus just on the more agnostic question of ethical conduct.
Gold selling involves either violating or facilitating the violation of most games' TOS.
Regardless of whether one thinks they should be able to engage in any conduct prohibited by the TOS, they do in fact prohibit such conduct and the user, as a condition to using the service, must agree to such conditions.
(Please spare me the adhesion contract/don't-believe-its-enforceable polemic)
How does Chris reconcile the dissonance between claiming that his company has integrity and can be trusted when its very existence is a result of consciously violating or facilitating the violation of a game's TOS?
Why should you trust someone who admits that they break their promises?
Gold selling involves either violating or facilitating the violation of most games' TOS.
Regardless of whether one thinks they should be able to engage in any conduct prohibited by the TOS, they do in fact prohibit such conduct and the user, as a condition to using the service, must agree to such conditions.
(Please spare me the adhesion contract/don't-believe-its-enforceable polemic)
How does Chris reconcile the dissonance between claiming that his company has integrity and can be trusted when its very existence is a result of consciously violating or facilitating the violation of a game's TOS?
Why should you trust someone who admits that they break their promises?
# posted by : 13/3/08 22:10
: 13/3/08 22:10
The label of 'evil' and the comparison with physical victim crimes does nothing but sidestep the issues related to RMT.
Some of those issues surround fair play. While it is not 'evil' to cheat at a friendly game of poker where no money is at stake, it is undesirable to the other participants.
It is that lack of consideration for the social contract of playing and not paying real money to be 'elite' in the ridiculously inane MMO games that RMT breaks in the games that have explicitly forbidden it in their respective rules that makes RMT undesirable (among a whole slew of other concerns that have been brought up before).
In an attempt to actually use the evil moniker in a general context (you decide if it fits in your ethical boundaries)...
To break an agreement is unethical, and to encourage others to do so is also unethical. To profit from the encouragement of the breaking of an agreement, and of the attending trust... Now that's evil.
And yes, the previous article read like an ad for that RMT vendor who encourages people to break the rules of the games they are playing with other people.
But hey, we should all trust that vendor, he's not up to no good.
Some of those issues surround fair play. While it is not 'evil' to cheat at a friendly game of poker where no money is at stake, it is undesirable to the other participants.
It is that lack of consideration for the social contract of playing and not paying real money to be 'elite' in the ridiculously inane MMO games that RMT breaks in the games that have explicitly forbidden it in their respective rules that makes RMT undesirable (among a whole slew of other concerns that have been brought up before).
In an attempt to actually use the evil moniker in a general context (you decide if it fits in your ethical boundaries)...
To break an agreement is unethical, and to encourage others to do so is also unethical. To profit from the encouragement of the breaking of an agreement, and of the attending trust... Now that's evil.
And yes, the previous article read like an ad for that RMT vendor who encourages people to break the rules of the games they are playing with other people.
But hey, we should all trust that vendor, he's not up to no good.
# posted by : 13/3/08 22:19
: 13/3/08 22:19
@some mystery internet dude
I don’t question Tobold’s integrity or right to publish an interview on his blog. It’s his blog and he can do whatever he wants. I think the interviewee outright lied and made misleading statements, particularly about gold buyers not getting banned. But it is Tobold’s right to write want he wants and my choice if I decided to continue to read his blog. However, blogs are also a way for the readership to speak back to the author and if something they writes is wrong or contradictory, part of the price you pay is criticism.
As to the other point, about whether RMT is wrong – legal or not – it negatively impacts some players while rewarding others. There is a clear loser and a clear winner and since the loser isn’t ask to opt-in or given the chance to opt-out, that makes it wrong. If the game were designed around RMT from the start, that line is not so clearly defined and it is much easier to make the case that is less wrong or even acceptable. You’ll notice that I refuse to say “Evil” since that is simply sensationalism intended to provoke a response.
For the record, one blog entry I don’t like is hardly a reason to stop reading a blog I enjoy reading. Keep up the good work, Tobold. Sometimes, the controversial topics end up being the best discussions.
I don’t question Tobold’s integrity or right to publish an interview on his blog. It’s his blog and he can do whatever he wants. I think the interviewee outright lied and made misleading statements, particularly about gold buyers not getting banned. But it is Tobold’s right to write want he wants and my choice if I decided to continue to read his blog. However, blogs are also a way for the readership to speak back to the author and if something they writes is wrong or contradictory, part of the price you pay is criticism.
As to the other point, about whether RMT is wrong – legal or not – it negatively impacts some players while rewarding others. There is a clear loser and a clear winner and since the loser isn’t ask to opt-in or given the chance to opt-out, that makes it wrong. If the game were designed around RMT from the start, that line is not so clearly defined and it is much easier to make the case that is less wrong or even acceptable. You’ll notice that I refuse to say “Evil” since that is simply sensationalism intended to provoke a response.
For the record, one blog entry I don’t like is hardly a reason to stop reading a blog I enjoy reading. Keep up the good work, Tobold. Sometimes, the controversial topics end up being the best discussions.
I'm asking the people who are against RMT to give arguments why RMT is bad (like doping)
Illegal RMT is bad because the people who engage in it break a contract. Beyond the collateral damage in terms of griefing, economy fixing or account hacking, though, part of the contract offered by those who prohibit RMT in their games to their customers is also that they can expect the game to act along to certain rules.
If a game embraces RMT and you can reach endgame either by levelling or by paying, fine. People who play those games know the rules and if they don't like them, they can play something else.
In the games which prohibit RMT, though, part of the expectation is that the playing field is level and everyone starts out with the same means. As a customer of such a game, I also expect the producer to come down hard on those who break their TOS, because I play based on these premises.
Would you go to a game of poker knowing that one of the other players will be allowed to cheat (but you don't know who)? Why has the story of a CCP employee who passed benefits to his guild? clan? (sorry, not an EVE player) in EVE online raised a huge stink in their player community? Why has the story of the warlock bragging that he plays in 2v2 arena with Kalgan and that he convinced him to nerf elemental shamans in 2.4 sent the CMs into full damage control mode?
Or more close to you, how will you react if Klaus Zumwinkel manages to leave court a free man because of some procedural technicality? Is Liechtenstein an evil state or is fiscal fraud the issue?
becuase I dont follow the UELA but I still play WoW, amazing!
You obviously missed the point by several miles. I am however convinced that if you get banned for it you will QQ about it as loud as all the other people and swear to god you did nothing wrong.
Illegal RMT is bad because the people who engage in it break a contract. Beyond the collateral damage in terms of griefing, economy fixing or account hacking, though, part of the contract offered by those who prohibit RMT in their games to their customers is also that they can expect the game to act along to certain rules.
If a game embraces RMT and you can reach endgame either by levelling or by paying, fine. People who play those games know the rules and if they don't like them, they can play something else.
In the games which prohibit RMT, though, part of the expectation is that the playing field is level and everyone starts out with the same means. As a customer of such a game, I also expect the producer to come down hard on those who break their TOS, because I play based on these premises.
Would you go to a game of poker knowing that one of the other players will be allowed to cheat (but you don't know who)? Why has the story of a CCP employee who passed benefits to his guild? clan? (sorry, not an EVE player) in EVE online raised a huge stink in their player community? Why has the story of the warlock bragging that he plays in 2v2 arena with Kalgan and that he convinced him to nerf elemental shamans in 2.4 sent the CMs into full damage control mode?
Or more close to you, how will you react if Klaus Zumwinkel manages to leave court a free man because of some procedural technicality? Is Liechtenstein an evil state or is fiscal fraud the issue?
becuase I dont follow the UELA but I still play WoW, amazing!
You obviously missed the point by several miles. I am however convinced that if you get banned for it you will QQ about it as loud as all the other people and swear to god you did nothing wrong.
# posted by : 14/3/08 00:04
: 14/3/08 00:04
Interesting post.
I would like my contribution to the conversation to be that there is an underlying moral issue present in your examples of sex and drugs. The issue is that is it always evil to treat another human being as and means rather than an end.
Prostitution is evil because it is the use of another human being as an object and means of sexual pleasure. Dealing drugs is evil when it is ruining another person's health and family as a means of profit.
The evil in both is compounded when the act involves breaking the social contracts (laws) upon which our societies function. However the moral character of the act is not dependent upon the law. An act can be completely legal and still morally evil.
There are acts which are intrinsically evil (morally wrong in any time, place or under any circumstances), and the use of another person as a means is one of them.
I would like my contribution to the conversation to be that there is an underlying moral issue present in your examples of sex and drugs. The issue is that is it always evil to treat another human being as and means rather than an end.
Prostitution is evil because it is the use of another human being as an object and means of sexual pleasure. Dealing drugs is evil when it is ruining another person's health and family as a means of profit.
The evil in both is compounded when the act involves breaking the social contracts (laws) upon which our societies function. However the moral character of the act is not dependent upon the law. An act can be completely legal and still morally evil.
There are acts which are intrinsically evil (morally wrong in any time, place or under any circumstances), and the use of another person as a means is one of them.
In a similar way evil activities have risen with the market in moonshine alcohol during the prohibition. Ending prohibition ended the evil activities, because now legit people could sell alcohol.
True, but do we have other data during that time such as liver damage or drunk driving accidents? No doubt those went down but the collateral damage form the probation out weighted the benefit of a sober country.
Now, Tobold, you have asked why RMT is so awful without using the side effect for the spamming and what not as a reason. While there have been a few good posts answering this question you must realize that the secondary effects are still part of the equation.
Lets take Meth for example. Meth is a nasty little drug that causes all sorts of nasty things from nausea and weight loss to kidney failure and in the worse case a severe case of dead-ness. Yet alcohol can cause the same things, (though Meth is far worse) but is legal. Tobacco too is very deadly, but it's legal. In fact both alcohol and tobacco are more addictive than Meth and cause more deaths per year(though I would like to see the ratio of meth users that die vs tobacco users that die, just to see if one is truly more deadly per unit), so why is Meth legal?
Because people blow up houses making meth and the vapors can kill children. When a Meth-head runs out he will steal and kill to get his next fix. Those reasons are not a direct effect of the drug, but a secondary effective it causes. The fact is that the secondary effects are just as important as the action that causes them. A great deal of things in the world are forbidden not because of the action itself but from the consequences it can cause in it's wake.
To make a long story short, don't dismiss the secondary effect as not part of the issue. All consequences of any action should be considered before we determine if it's morally just or not.
And just for the record, I got no beef with you posting whatever you want on your Blog. By trying to get a different point of view on a subject is both a good read and good way to get rating/readers. Kudos on your attempt to try and present both sides of this issue.
True, but do we have other data during that time such as liver damage or drunk driving accidents? No doubt those went down but the collateral damage form the probation out weighted the benefit of a sober country.
Now, Tobold, you have asked why RMT is so awful without using the side effect for the spamming and what not as a reason. While there have been a few good posts answering this question you must realize that the secondary effects are still part of the equation.
Lets take Meth for example. Meth is a nasty little drug that causes all sorts of nasty things from nausea and weight loss to kidney failure and in the worse case a severe case of dead-ness. Yet alcohol can cause the same things, (though Meth is far worse) but is legal. Tobacco too is very deadly, but it's legal. In fact both alcohol and tobacco are more addictive than Meth and cause more deaths per year(though I would like to see the ratio of meth users that die vs tobacco users that die, just to see if one is truly more deadly per unit), so why is Meth legal?
Because people blow up houses making meth and the vapors can kill children. When a Meth-head runs out he will steal and kill to get his next fix. Those reasons are not a direct effect of the drug, but a secondary effective it causes. The fact is that the secondary effects are just as important as the action that causes them. A great deal of things in the world are forbidden not because of the action itself but from the consequences it can cause in it's wake.
To make a long story short, don't dismiss the secondary effect as not part of the issue. All consequences of any action should be considered before we determine if it's morally just or not.
And just for the record, I got no beef with you posting whatever you want on your Blog. By trying to get a different point of view on a subject is both a good read and good way to get rating/readers. Kudos on your attempt to try and present both sides of this issue.
I never before could find the reason of prostitution being a morally objectionably activity, minus the actives that surrounds it. I've never considered that point of view before.
Nicely said, Brent Brown.
Nicely said, Brent Brown.
RMT reduce the spiritual quality of playing the game, in a similar way as paying money to the church for a better standing with god will diminish the spiritual quality of religion.
Once someone starts paying for religion the practice will dent the overall spiritual quality of religious lifestyles.
This is hard enough to phraze as a question, and maybe hard to agree with as well.
Once someone starts paying for religion the practice will dent the overall spiritual quality of religious lifestyles.
This is hard enough to phraze as a question, and maybe hard to agree with as well.
# posted by : 14/3/08 10:04
: 14/3/08 10:04
selling virtual gold isn't evil, it's just a service.
the only question i have is: why bother going to 3rd party operators? why not buy it direct from the game publisher, or failing that, from an auction house operated by the publisher?
the only question i have is: why bother going to 3rd party operators? why not buy it direct from the game publisher, or failing that, from an auction house operated by the publisher?
RMT imo is a service provided to those who feel they need it. With that being said, it doesn't ruin lives, it doesn't cause someone to behave differently (drugs), and it doesn't have a negative effect on RL in any way. So whats the big deal?
Spamming and ingame advertising wouldn't be that big of a deal for me if blizz would just expand the number of people I can ignore. Right now I believe it is capped at 25 which on a server of 3000 simply isn't enough.
What about the people who choose to sell gold to the RMT for RL profit? Is it evil to pay for wow everymonth by selling 1000g to an RMT company who will turn around and sell it back to players?
Spamming and ingame advertising wouldn't be that big of a deal for me if blizz would just expand the number of people I can ignore. Right now I believe it is capped at 25 which on a server of 3000 simply isn't enough.
What about the people who choose to sell gold to the RMT for RL profit? Is it evil to pay for wow everymonth by selling 1000g to an RMT company who will turn around and sell it back to players?
# posted by : 14/3/08 19:01
: 14/3/08 19:01
I have a question or two for him: "Can you give us a vague/or general idea of how your company earns most of the in-game money that you turn around and sell. How do you feel about bots in general? What are some of uses/implementations of RMT that aren't available yet that you foresee for the future? And do you think that companies who supply MMORPG's should supply their own RMT such as SONY is starting to do?
Is RMT evil, no. Is RMT cheating, yes. Are you an idiot for giving him a free advert...
# posted by : 16/3/08 18:44
: 16/3/08 18:44
Tobold, I applaud you for posting the original interview. I think it's a good thing that Chris was willing to be interviewed.
Personally, as I mentioned on my blog, I don't have an issue with RMT in and of itself. It's the impact of RMT. If the game were structured in such a way to minimize those impacts, and players had an option of spending time or money for items then I don't see much of an issue. After all .. Mr. (or Ms.) Unemployed/student/weird hours shift worker has time to spend to get gear in game while I'm working .. I don't see an issue with me spending money to get the same items. As long as I don't negatively impact other players that I'm playing with (grouping/raiding/etc) in doing so.
Of course the whole against the EULA thing is an issue for me as well ... but that's not an issue with RMT specifically, just the way the game is structured to not support it.
Personally, as I mentioned on my blog, I don't have an issue with RMT in and of itself. It's the impact of RMT. If the game were structured in such a way to minimize those impacts, and players had an option of spending time or money for items then I don't see much of an issue. After all .. Mr. (or Ms.) Unemployed/student/weird hours shift worker has time to spend to get gear in game while I'm working .. I don't see an issue with me spending money to get the same items. As long as I don't negatively impact other players that I'm playing with (grouping/raiding/etc) in doing so.
Of course the whole against the EULA thing is an issue for me as well ... but that's not an issue with RMT specifically, just the way the game is structured to not support it.
I recently read an article by a Korean lawyer (referring to R.O RMT) who had a good point on the legality of RMT.
(paraphrased)
Though the game, and the game currency may be considered Intellectual Property of the game corporation... It is in reality not the actual game currency or item that the RMT purchaser is purchasing...
The payment of RM for game currency is more of a good-will payment for the Effort of obtaining the game currency; not the currency itself....
Since all the items/currency sold in RMT can be obtained by any of the players involved, it is in fact the time and effort to obtain such items that people who purchase from RMT traders pay for.
Since it is the time/effort spent not the actual currency, Gaming Corporations have no right to interfere on the grounds of ownership to the currency/items being traded.
Post a Comment
(paraphrased)
Though the game, and the game currency may be considered Intellectual Property of the game corporation... It is in reality not the actual game currency or item that the RMT purchaser is purchasing...
The payment of RM for game currency is more of a good-will payment for the Effort of obtaining the game currency; not the currency itself....
Since all the items/currency sold in RMT can be obtained by any of the players involved, it is in fact the time and effort to obtain such items that people who purchase from RMT traders pay for.
Since it is the time/effort spent not the actual currency, Gaming Corporations have no right to interfere on the grounds of ownership to the currency/items being traded.
<< Home
