Arseni Stardoumov, Stockholm School of Economics,
has written with an interesting set of propositions regarding RMT.
Assume the players have a diversity of tastes for both the rewards of
the game system (R) as well as its challenges (C). Assume further that
there are alienable items that affect an individual's perception of C. It follows that there will always be, in that population, a
market for these items. Each person has an ideal {R, C} bundle. The
game system offers some default {R, C} bundle. In order to move from
the default to their ideal level of challenge, players will buy items that get their C values closer to their personal ideal, and sell ones that do not.
One implication that I thought was interesting: Currently, all RMT
involves people buying items that reduce the challenge level. But what
if a game was too easy? Then people would actually buy things that make
the game harder. Or, at least, that's how the potential market would
work. That market never appears, though. People quit easy games. Only
in hard games do they stay and use markets to adjust game
conditions. Not sure why.
Note that all this is independent of any diversity of income and time. You can have completely equal incomes and time resources in your player base and this model says you'd still get RMT.
Well, there's more, but who has time these days? Inside you'll find a full text of Arseni's thoughts, and his request for feedback.
Recent Comments