Microsoft endorsing sale of in-game items?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot of
controversy over the years. I've argued that it's an inevitable extension of
the free marketplace to the gaming worlds that are now starting to attract
big attention as the big publishers smell all the money being left on the
table at eBay and IGE. I haven't actually made up my mind whether I think
it's a good thing or not for games, but I know that many people reading this
message despise it with a passion. Part of this is probaby because making
money in the real world is a lot harder than making it in the game worlds,
and anything that gives an advantage to one group over the other is bound to
piss off a lot of folks. But you know, you still have to be resourceful
enough to earn the money one place or the other, right?

Anyway, there was a bit of an uproar when SOE's Smedley hinted at the
company's sanctioning of this practice in a recent communication, and now
Microsoft is suggesting the idea of institutionalizing it in their online
game world, at least on the console side initially with the idea of
"micro-transactions". Check out the story here.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gdc_next_xbox/index.htm

Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard,
Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of most
hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal
opponents of this practice?

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
> The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot
of
> controversy over the years. I've argued that it's an inevitable extension
of
> the free marketplace to the gaming worlds that are now starting to attract
> big attention as the big publishers smell all the money being left on the
> table at eBay and IGE. I haven't actually made up my mind whether I think
> it's a good thing or not for games, but I know that many people reading
this
> message despise it with a passion. Part of this is probaby because making
> money in the real world is a lot harder than making it in the game worlds,
> and anything that gives an advantage to one group over the other is bound
to
> piss off a lot of folks. But you know, you still have to be resourceful
> enough to earn the money one place or the other, right?

Everybody is different, so this will mean different things to different
people.

If you got Gamer A who can only play 1 to 2 hours a day 3 or 4 days a week,
after a couple of months he/she won't have that much "really cool stuff"...
but for Gamer B who puts in 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week... they often
will end up more powerful and with more powerful items after the same amount
of months playing.

By letting players buy and sell items found in the game, it lets the players
who don't play so much have a route to acquire items they might not
otherwise normally be able to.

To some this might sound "really lame" or "what a waste of 'real' money?"
but otherwise you would just end up with the most powerful characters either
just hoarding stuff or doling it out as free gifts to the others... that
means the items would either be effectivly "gone" from the game (they are in
the game, but nobody is using them) or what might be an otherwise
cool/valuable item becomes common stock found on the streets.

I haven't played anything lately, but I can recall to times gone past in
games where the high level players would often just give out all their
"useless" stuff to the next 1st level character around the corner. To the
new player this stuff is all amazing and godlike compared to the crummy
sword they buy at the store for 1gp... but as they use this stuff and get
used to players just forking stuff out the true "value" of the item
depreciates because "everybody has one of those..."

On the other hand... there is resentment when the powerful get something and
don't value it because everything else they have is better... IE: the
developers might put in a really cool and unique +3 cloak... just to have
the item, a group of powerful characters goes out and gets it... but when
they have it they realise "geez, we all have +5 cloaks and this is only
+3... none of us want this" and so they just put the item into long term
storage... effectivly removing it from the game.... which can piss off the
lower level players because its better than what they have, but they can't
get it because its now gone from the game world.

Because these games attract so many different people there is no happy
medium: one player might be only able to put in 5 hours a week into a
game... somebody else can put in 100... another might work 30hrs a week at a
minimum wage job... somebody else makes $100 an hour...

So to sell an item for $150 on eBay... one might look at it like "it'll take
me 100 hours of playing before I can get that... at 5hrs a week thats almost
half a year" or "to buy that costs me almost a full weeks pay!"... while to
another player they might see it as "I can play for 1 week and have that
item myself!" or "$150? Its 3:30pm now... I'll make that much by 5pm from
my salary... why put in 100 hours if I just afford to buy that right now"


Clint

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com>, Bob Perez
<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
> The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot of
> controversy over the years. I've argued that it's an inevitable extension of
> the free marketplace to the gaming worlds that are now starting to attract
> big attention as the big publishers smell all the money being left on the
> table at eBay and IGE. I haven't actually made up my mind whether I think
> it's a good thing or not for games, but I know that many people reading this
> message despise it with a passion. Part of this is probaby because making
> money in the real world is a lot harder than making it in the game worlds,
> and anything that gives an advantage to one group over the other is bound to
> piss off a lot of folks. But you know, you still have to be resourceful
> enough to earn the money one place or the other, right?

I think much of the opposition comes from a (justified) fear that
in-game sale of items will lead to the game becoming more expensive to
play. Want to see the interesting new zones? No problem, but you'll
have to fork over $3 for a new sword if you want to survive.

People don't like unpredictable cost models, which is one of the
reasons many will happily pay $50/month for phone service with
unlimited long-distance--even if their total bill on a metered plan
would be less.

> Anyway, there was a bit of an uproar when SOE's Smedley hinted at the
> company's sanctioning of this practice in a recent communication, and now
> Microsoft is suggesting the idea of institutionalizing it in their online
> game world, at least on the console side initially with the idea of
> "micro-transactions". Check out the story here.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gdc_next_xbox/index.htm

I predict this will go over like a lead balloon, for the above reasons.

From the article:

Racing game enthusiasts, for example, will be able to buy a faster
car to give them an edge in the game for a slight bit more, should
they wish.

I really doubt that's going to fly. "I paid $50 for this lousy game,
and now they want me to pay more to race the car I want!?"

It might be possible to manage it with a game that sells for $10, and
makes up the extra by selling in-game upgrades, I guess. (Following
the model of Magic: The Gathering.)


> Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard,
> Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of most
> hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal
> opponents of this practice?

Probably won't affect it at all.

If it does, it'll kill the game. Vanguard will promptly get a
reputation as "that game where you have to pay for uber equipment if
you want to see any of the content", regardless of whether it's
justified or not. I really don't see that happening, however, given
McQuaid's opinions.

- Damien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

> Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot
> harder than making it in the game worlds,

The exact opposite is true. Imagine spending six months of full-time work
online to build up a character that you then sell for what...$5000? That
means you can earn $10,000 per year. Hardly enough to quit your day
job...unless you're a teenager with too much time on their hands, in which
case 10k is a sweet chunk of cash!

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <3999r5F5uknopU1@individual.net>, Imperial.Palace@Rome.com
says...

Even if you -can- sell items for real world cash, that isn't going to
stop high level characters from handing over their 'junk' to their
friends. Think about it... a +3 cloak that takes 20 hours to get, when
you have a +5 cloak... you expect most people to -care- about its market
value of $3.50?

Maybe you know people for whom 18c/h is a raise and who are looking at
making a career at this, but for me, I'd as soon give it away as sell
it.

If I was looking to make money I'd turn EQ off, work for 15 minutes, and
then play EQ for 19.75 hours and end up ahead.

Obviously there is a market for games in which you can buy and sell your
'stuff'. Equally obviously there is a market for games in which you
*cannot*.

Hopefully, eventually we'll each be able to play the kind of game we
want. Ideally the ebayers should have a legitmate secure means to
transact in their game and the anti-ebayer crowd should have a game
that's not polluted with ebayers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <3999r5F5uknopU1@individual.net>,
"Augustus" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:

>I haven't played anything lately, but I can recall to times gone past in
>games where the high level players would often just give out all their
>"useless" stuff to the next 1st level character around the corner. To the
>new player this stuff is all amazing and godlike compared to the crummy
>sword they buy at the store for 1gp... but as they use this stuff and get
>used to players just forking stuff out the true "value" of the item
>depreciates because "everybody has one of those..."


A few times, primarily in AC and AO, the generosity of other players actually
ruined the game for me. I didn't know how to refuse their gifts without
hurting their feelings, and I was left with little desire to continue. I just
walked into the world an hour ago, and BAM ! I got 2 mill in my bank
account.

The challenge and satisfaction from actually _earning_ my way in the game
was taken away.

Subsequently I learned how to refuse gracefully and let them help me in
a non-stuff way. " If you could just safely get me to X city, I'd be eternally
grateful " type thing. [ even if I didn't want to go ].

Jim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
> The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot
of

Each to their own, I am neither for or against it, just to me, something
merely bought in these terms has no value in game. I play to seperate
fantasy from reality, not bring them together. I could see why this sort of
thing would be attractive to the weak minded.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <ksOXd.4107$gM2.1451@newsfe3
-gui.ntli.net>, "Lief" <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote:

>
>"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
>news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
>> The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a lot
>of
>
>Each to their own, I am neither for or against it, just to me, something
>merely bought in these terms has no value in game. I play to seperate
>fantasy from reality, not bring them together. I could see why this sort of
>thing would be attractive to the weak minded.


I just don't understand it. I realize there are a hell of a lot of young kids
whose rich [ or not ] parents will cough up whatever Johnny wants, as a
substitute for parenting, but anyone else of puberty or older paying out of
their own pocket ? Nope, baffles me.

What possible pleasure could one derive from from _buying_ as opposed
to _earning_ ? It's as repulsive to me as Smart buying his mail order PHD and
then claiming to be legit. Sickening really.

Jim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
news:Q5PXd.626981$6l.160322@pd7tw2no...
>
> What possible pleasure could one derive from from _buying_ as opposed
> to _earning_ ? It's as repulsive to me as Smart buying his mail order PHD
> and
> then claiming to be legit. Sickening really.
>
> Jim

What's sickening is your fixation on Derek Smart.

 

[Grimace]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I have both bought and sold. I sold some stuff in EQ a long time ago.
Think I got $300 for SSoY.

In SWG around when the holocrons first came out I was going out hunting
for hrs trying to get one. I spent 4 days at least 6hrs a night trying
to get a drop. I looked at the time I was spending and thought i could
definately make better use. I ended up buy 10million credits to buy a
couple holocrons. I figured then I could at least be working towards a
profession. To me the money didn't matter so much because I was
putting in huge amounts of time.

Months later I sold my SWG account for $2k. DO I feel bad about it.
No not at all. I don't see how it harms anyone that someone bought my
account. Somebody obviously wants to play without doing the legwork.
More power too them.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Lief" <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote in message
news:ksOXd.4107$gM2.1451@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
> news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
> > The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a
lot
> of
>
> Each to their own, I am neither for or against it, just to me, something
> merely bought in these terms has no value in game. I play to seperate
> fantasy from reality, not bring them together. I could see why this sort
of
> thing would be attractive to the weak minded.
>
>
I would be worried that the game designers would have a disincentive to
create a fair game. Simply by selling the basic model car (for example),
letting them win a few races then fewer and fewer unless they pony up for an
'upgrade'... then another... then another....

There's a lot of con games like that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Shadow" <kitchen@fis.org.nz> wrote in message
news:%ZRXd.191525$K7.77657@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Lief" <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote in message
> news:ksOXd.4107$gM2.1451@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
> > news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
> > > The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a
> lot
> > of
> >
> > Each to their own, I am neither for or against it, just to me, something
> > merely bought in these terms has no value in game. I play to seperate
> > fantasy from reality, not bring them together. I could see why this
sort
> of
> > thing would be attractive to the weak minded.
> >
> >
> I would be worried that the game designers would have a disincentive to
> create a fair game. Simply by selling the basic model car (for example),
> letting them win a few races then fewer and fewer unless they pony up for
an
> 'upgrade'... then another... then another....
>
> There's a lot of con games like that.

In their greed to make money with this I think they would find not many
people playing these games. Just because a few percent of people ebay stuff
etc, doesnt mean the whole gaming population would welcome it. More likely
the opposite.

I could see it possibly working for single player games.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:47:16 -0800, Damien Neil wrote:

<snip>
> If it does, it'll kill the game. Vanguard will promptly get a
> reputation as "that game where you have to pay for uber equipment if
> you want to see any of the content", regardless of whether it's
> justified or not. I really don't see that happening, however, given
> McQuaid's opinions.

The only problem is that it isn't Brad's money on the line. If MS says
you'll do it then he has three options. Either cave in and let it happen,
quit and publically oppose it or do nothing.


--
RJB
3/10/2005 10:56:57 AM

Question: If you could live forever, would you and why? Answer: I would not
live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were
supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live
forever, which is why I would not live forever.
-Miss Alabama, in the 1994 Miss Universe contest

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Grackle" <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote in message
news:Z_NXd.22546$fW4.673042@news20.bellglobal.com...

>> Part of this is probaby because making money in the real world is a lot
>> harder than making it in the game worlds,
>
> The exact opposite is true. Imagine spending six months of full-time work
> online to build up a character that you then sell for what...$5000? That
> means you can earn $10,000 per year. Hardly enough to quit your day
> job...unless you're a teenager with too much time on their hands, in which
> case 10k is a sweet chunk of cash!

Well, my point was that some resentment may be based on the disparity
between the haves and the have-nots. The guy who doesn't have a lot of
disposable income wants to compete with the guy who does. If it were just a
matter of grinding out crafting levels and making money in game, THAT he
could do and on that playing field he could win. But in the real world money
doesn't come that easily, it's far harder to earn and in that race he is
disadvantaged and therefore resentful.

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
news:Q5PXd.626981$6l.160322@pd7tw2no...

> What possible pleasure could one derive from from _buying_ as opposed
> to _earning_ ?

But Jim, suppose the guy's busted his ass in real life to earn the money he
then used to buy the ingame items? Whether he earns it in the game or earns
it in real life, he's still earned it, no? Moreover, earning real life money
is much harder than doing it in any of these games, and one could argue that
using that hard-earned cash to reward oneself in game will result in items
that are *more* valued to the purchaser than the guy who's bot farmed his
way to in-game wealth. The guy who purchased his Sword of Condign with RL
cash has actually done something productive in the economy to get the cash
used to buy the Sword, and may take great pride in this fact. Can you say
that about the guy who spent 16 hours of his life camping Foozle?

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <p_NXd.625781$6l.400532@pd7tw2no>,
bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:
>In article <3999r5F5uknopU1@individual.net>,
> "Augustus" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:
>
>>I haven't played anything lately, but I can recall to times gone past in
>>games where the high level players would often just give out all their
>>"useless" stuff to the next 1st level character around the corner. To
the
>>new player this stuff is all amazing and godlike compared to the crummy
>>sword they buy at the store for 1gp... but as they use this stuff and get
>>used to players just forking stuff out the true "value" of the item
>>depreciates because "everybody has one of those..."
>
>
>A few times, primarily in AC and AO, the generosity of other players
actually
>ruined the game for me. I didn't know how to refuse their gifts without
>hurting their feelings, and I was left with little desire to continue. I
just
>walked into the world an hour ago, and BAM ! I got 2 mill in my bank
>account.
>
>The challenge and satisfaction from actually _earning_ my way in the game
>was taken away.
>
>Subsequently I learned how to refuse gracefully and let them help me in
>a non-stuff way. " If you could just safely get me to X city, I'd be
eternally
>grateful " type thing. [ even if I didn't want to go ].

Interesting. In Real Work, my biggest bitch was people who
wanted to "help". I had no skills to give them a task that
helped get them momentarily out of the way.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <%ZRXd.191525$K7.77657@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Shadow" <kitchen@fis.org.nz> wrote:
>
>"Lief" <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote in message
>news:ksOXd.4107$gM2.1451@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
>> news:112ur1tjptepq50@news.supernews.com...
>> > The idea of selling in-game content for real world cash has stirred a
>lot
>> of
>>
>> Each to their own, I am neither for or against it, just to me, something
>> merely bought in these terms has no value in game. I play to seperate
>> fantasy from reality, not bring them together. I could see why this
sort
>of
>> thing would be attractive to the weak minded.
>>
>>
>I would be worried that the game designers would have a disincentive to
>create a fair game. Simply by selling the basic model car (for example),
>letting them win a few races then fewer and fewer unless they pony up for
an
>'upgrade'... then another... then another....
>
>There's a lot of con games like that.

That happens to be Misoft's business model for its system
software. This itemized buy/selling within a game may be
a preamble for the OS side of its software biz.

Interesting wrinkle.

/BAH



Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote in message
news:11319jg8gib4050@news.supernews.com...
>
> "foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
> news:Q5PXd.626981$6l.160322@pd7tw2no...
>
> > What possible pleasure could one derive from from _buying_ as opposed
> > to _earning_ ?
>
> But Jim, suppose the guy's busted his ass in real life to earn the money
he
> then used to buy the ingame items? Whether he earns it in the game or
earns
> it in real life, he's still earned it, no?

No. He earned the money to by the item. He didnt earn the item in game
terms.

Moreover, earning real life money
> is much harder than doing it in any of these games, and one could argue
that
> using that hard-earned cash to reward oneself in game will result in items
> that are *more* valued to the purchaser than the guy who's bot farmed his
> way to in-game wealth.


Gogo generalisations. What if the guy is stealing so he can buy in game
items? He earned them then? What if he inherited his cash, then bought
items, guess he earned them then too.

Problem is earning something in RL has nothing or should have nothing to do
with earning something in a game.

The guy who purchased his Sword of Condign with RL
> cash has actually done something productive in the economy to get the cash
> used to buy the Sword, and may take great pride in this fact. Can you say
> that about the guy who spent 16 hours of his life camping Foozle?

Yes, the guy who camped for 16hours earned it, the guy who bought it did not
earn it, he got some money and bought it off somebody who DID earn it, in
the context of the game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I liked the way EQ2 handled the situation. Most magic items must be
'attuned' to you, meaning you can either use it or hand it/sell it, but
not both (i.e. once it is attuned, nobody else can use it). To me,
measures like this or some sort of item decay are necessary if you want
to have crafting being any part of your economy (otherwise, say 6
months after game is released, how could a new crafter compete at all
against all the drops from mobs that have been generated, plus vs. all
the crafters that came before him, etc?)
Of course, you'd still have people making or finding these things and
selling them in their 'unattuned' form, but how's this any different
from people doing the same thing in game?
Obviously, another thing to add is that the game should limit an item's
effectiveness to the level of the wielder, in other words, me wielding
Excalibur shouldn't make me a better swordsman than an experienced
fighter with an iron sword.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Bob Perez wrote:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/09/commentary/game_over/gdc_next_xbox/index.htm
>
> Here's an interesting question: how do you think this bodes for Vanguard,
> Microsoft's upcoming MMOG that is currently on the must-watch list of most
> hardcore MMOG'ers and designed by Brad McQuaid, one of the most vocal
> opponents of this practice?
>
Doesn't this announcement refer to games hosted on free servers, not
games based on monthly subscription fees? Clearly, Vanguard and most
other MMORPGs would require a complete redesign if this were to become
the norm, and I'm not sure if the genre could survive at all. ("Click
here to gain level 65 with full raid gear! -- just $99.95 - VISA, MC,
AMEX")

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >In article <11319jg8gib4050@news.supernews.com>,
> >myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE says...
>
> >> Whether he earns it in the game or earns
> >> it in real life, he's still earned it, no?
>
> >No.
>
> >Some things aren't for sale. Personal achievement is one of those
> >things.
>
> >If you try to buy it you just cheapen it for everyone, your a poser.
>
> >Max level, items, flags, are thought by many to be personal
achievments
> >in EQ.
>
> Honestly, I don't think the game workings and rules should
> necessarily be structured towards pleasing those people. If
> it turns out pleasing them is the best way to make money,
> sure. But it might not be.

Well, I'm of the opinion that it is. Even though I play computer games
to relax and as a diversion, I still need there to be some point to
what I'm doing - some carrot to keep me interested. If it becomes too
close to instant gratification, it becomes far less interesting, and
I'll go find something else to do.

> >For them the point of the game is to achieve them, if you buy
> >them then you didn't achieve them and it cheapens it for everyone.
>
> No, it just cheapens it for people who care about that sort of thing.

For the record, I think that is actually the majority. Seriously, what
other motivation is there beyond being able to socialize with friends?
If it's just the socialization aspect, why pay $14.95 or more per month
for that when you can get it from any number of IRC or other chat
rooms?

I'm trying to remain open minded here, and do realize that others get
other things out of the game, but we are still talking primarily about
a *gaming* community here.

> >A hockey hall of famer, father of the year, military promotion,
olympic
> >medalist, oscar nominee, etc are all examples of RL personal
> >achievments... if you could just buy them on ebay they'd lose their
> >meaning to everyone.
>
> Finding a cool magical item in a game is equivalent to winning
> an Olympic medal? Not to me. It's not even a scale thing, it's
> pure apples and oranges.

The scale is obviously different, but the point is valid. Any
achievement is lessened when it is purchased rather than "achieved".

> And how do you feel about the fact that anyone can go into
> any gift shop in the world and buy a coffee mug or t-shirt
> proclaiming them to be Father of the Year?

Are you a father? If you are, then you shouldn't even need to ask that
question. In case you're not, let me clue you in. When it's given to
you by a loved one, the tecnical validity of the claim matters not. All
that is important is that the giver feels that way. If you buy it
yourself, then yeah, it's pretty lame and amounts pretty much to what
the previous poster was criticizing - false achievement.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> >A hockey hall of famer, father of the year, military promotion,
olympic
> >medalist, oscar nominee, etc are all examples of RL personal
> >achievments... if you could just buy them on ebay they'd lose their
> >meaning to everyone.
>
> Finding a cool magical item in a game is equivalent to winning
> an Olympic medal? Not to me. It's not even a scale thing, it's
> pure apples and oranges.

I don't think that he was directly comparing the two. He was saying
that the olympic medal would be meaningless if you could pay for it.
If you could pay your country's olympic team selection comittee to be
selected to go to the olympics and you could pay the other competitors
to let you win then the win is meaningless. If everyone could do that
and all the olympic winners from now on were the people who could bid
more than the others then all olympic medals would be meaningless.

In the same way, finding the cool magical item would mean nothing if
everyone else bought it.


> And how do you feel about the fact that anyone can go into
> any gift shop in the world and buy a coffee mug or t-shirt
> proclaiming them to be Father of the Year?

When you see someone with a coffee mug or t-shirt proclaiming them to
be Father of the Year does it actually impress you? Or do you just
assume that it was bought from a shop? To me, it wouldn't even suggest
that they were good father.

steve.kaye

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <11319jg8gib4050@news.supernews.com>,
>myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE says...

>> Whether he earns it in the game or earns
>> it in real life, he's still earned it, no?

>No.

>Some things aren't for sale. Personal achievement is one of those
>things.

>If you try to buy it you just cheapen it for everyone, your a poser.

>Max level, items, flags, are thought by many to be personal achievments
>in EQ.

Honestly, I don't think the game workings and rules should
necessarily be structured towards pleasing those people. If
it turns out pleasing them is the best way to make money,
sure. But it might not be.

>For them the point of the game is to achieve them, if you buy
>them then you didn't achieve them and it cheapens it for everyone.

No, it just cheapens it for people who care about that sort of thing.

>A hockey hall of famer, father of the year, military promotion, olympic
>medalist, oscar nominee, etc are all examples of RL personal
>achievments... if you could just buy them on ebay they'd lose their
>meaning to everyone.

Finding a cool magical item in a game is equivalent to winning
an Olympic medal? Not to me. It's not even a scale thing, it's
pure apples and oranges.

And how do you feel about the fact that anyone can go into
any gift shop in the world and buy a coffee mug or t-shirt
proclaiming them to be Father of the Year?

Pete

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg steve.kaye <nospam@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter Meilinger wrote:

>> Finding a cool magical item in a game is equivalent to winning
>> an Olympic medal? Not to me. It's not even a scale thing, it's
>> pure apples and oranges.

>I don't think that he was directly comparing the two. He was saying
>that the olympic medal would be meaningless if you could pay for it.

Not really. I can look up the people who won the various Olympic
events anytime I want. Just owning the medal doesn't make you
an Olympic medal winner. It'd be the same in a game - if people
really care whether someone "earned" or bought his equipment,
there are easy enough ways to differentiate the two.

>If you could pay your country's olympic team selection comittee to be
>selected to go to the olympics and you could pay the other competitors
>to let you win then the win is meaningless. If everyone could do that
>and all the olympic winners from now on were the people who could bid
>more than the others then all olympic medals would be meaningless.

Sure. But that's nothing at all like what's being discussed.
Being able to buy items with out-of-game cash is like having
a system where Olympic athletes have to work hard to earn
good equipment, but then someone comes along who bought the
equipment on his own. More power to him, I say, but he's
still going to have to compete with everyone else.

>In the same way, finding the cool magical item would mean nothing if
>everyone else bought it.

Not to me. And don't people buy and sell magical items within
the game anyway? If so, I don't see any important difference.

>> And how do you feel about the fact that anyone can go into
>> any gift shop in the world and buy a coffee mug or t-shirt
>> proclaiming them to be Father of the Year?

>When you see someone with a coffee mug or t-shirt proclaiming them to
>be Father of the Year does it actually impress you?

Of course not. But when I hear about a game character with a
super-cool magic item, that doesn't impress me, either.

Pete

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 11 Mar 2005 15:04:01 GMT, Peter Meilinger wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg steve.kaye <nospam@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote:
>>Peter Meilinger wrote:
>
>>> Finding a cool magical item in a game is equivalent to winning
>>> an Olympic medal? Not to me. It's not even a scale thing, it's
>>> pure apples and oranges.
>
>>I don't think that he was directly comparing the two. He was saying
>>that the olympic medal would be meaningless if you could pay for it.
>
> Not really. I can look up the people who won the various Olympic
> events anytime I want. Just owning the medal doesn't make you
> an Olympic medal winner. It'd be the same in a game - if people
> really care whether someone "earned" or bought his equipment,
> there are easy enough ways to differentiate the two.
How so? If a person playing EQ off and on for five years who doesn't have a
guild (maybe they're not into guilds) just wants to get some of the "oober"
gear the guildies have. S/he has been playing and grouping for years. How
could you tell the gear was bought?

>
>>If you could pay your country's olympic team selection comittee to be
>>selected to go to the olympics and you could pay the other competitors
>>to let you win then the win is meaningless. If everyone could do that
>>and all the olympic winners from now on were the people who could bid
>>more than the others then all olympic medals would be meaningless.
>
> Sure. But that's nothing at all like what's being discussed.
> Being able to buy items with out-of-game cash is like having
> a system where Olympic athletes have to work hard to earn
> good equipment, but then someone comes along who bought the
> equipment on his own. More power to him, I say, but he's
> still going to have to compete with everyone else.
He's also going to have to compete with the increased camping for items. If
MS says they're going to sell ingame items you know some people will think
it's open season for them to start harvesting items themselves.

>>In the same way, finding the cool magical item would mean nothing if
>>everyone else bought it.
>
> Not to me. And don't people buy and sell magical items within
> the game anyway? If so, I don't see any important difference.
There is a big difference between ingame money and real money.

>>> And how do you feel about the fact that anyone can go into
>>> any gift shop in the world and buy a coffee mug or t-shirt
>>> proclaiming them to be Father of the Year?
>
>>When you see someone with a coffee mug or t-shirt proclaiming them to
>>be Father of the Year does it actually impress you?
>
> Of course not. But when I hear about a game character with a
> super-cool magic item, that doesn't impress me, either.
I'll agree with you here. What does impress me is someone who can overcome
the challenges the game gives them and gains the super-cool magic item.
Just opening a wallet does not.


--
RJB
3/11/2005 10:19:15 AM

"If a trainstation is where the train stops, what's a workstation...?"
-Anon.