« Anti-Social Contracts | Main | Item of note: CBS to broadcast game play »

Jul 26, 2007

Comments

1.

Robert Bloomfield>If, in response to my prior posts on TN, you thought SL markets were a game, are you having fun yet?

I suspect the person who stole the money is...

Richard

2.

I'm a runescape player,I know some web:
runescape
runescape

It is good~

3.

lawl @ the almost in topic spam message. Thats scary.

Seriously however, I actually WANT people to lose alot of money on this, to serve as a bit of a warning to people who want to monetize in game-time that its not cool.

But again, my view is probably a bit radical in that respect. I really want to see virtual reality for the masses, not just the rich guys.

4.

That's not radical, dmx, it's archaic and luddite, and extremely intolerant to people with different interests than yours.

RMT is not some offense against the gods of gaming. RMT gives people the ability to balance their entertainment time and real life. Children and people who live on welfare, who can spend 80 hours a week in a VW, should not be given some absurd advantage over people who actually work for a living and would like to visit a VW and still accomplish something. Normal people would like to be able to decide when to pay real money, and when to build up equity only in the VW. Normal people would also like to be able to extract some real money from their time in the VW; even if it's not a full-time living, making something back allows you to move more easily to a new world.

RMT is the only option which is fair to both "the masses" (i.e., 13-year-olds and welfare beggars) and "rich folks" (i.e. anyone who has a job and prefers to spend a few bucks rather than level-grind endlessly); your "masses" are a small percentage of the real world population, but a majority in the more childish VWs like WoW. A non-RMT system quickly degenerates into nothing but a lowest-common-denominator, certainly nothing any responsible adult would want to be near.

No world developer can stop RMT without making a completely nerfed world (even in Toontown, there are at least two obvious ways to do RMT, though I'm not aware of anyone currently doing so). Notice the spam above; Runescape has no official RMT but you can't stop the users from adding it.

If you impede your players' attempts to balance real life and virtual life, they'll quit your prison-like world, though few operators have managed to cause more than slight annoyance. When people make gnomes fall from the sky to get their message out, it's time to quit pissing them off and accept it.

As for the financial exchanges, they'll survive long-term, though the WSE may not. This is just one case of fraud, by someone who helped develop the system, and they're dealing with Linden Lab to get the money back and punish the criminal. Everyone's well aware that virtual world finances carry high risk, and so rarely put life-threatening amounts of money in them. The mechanics of using Second Life instead of a web site aside, this is a perfectly normal case of interstate fraud, is a Federal felony offense, and the perpetrator should be looking at years in Federal prison for it.

I know some of the people involved in running these exchanges, and have turned down offers to develop financial systems because I'm not interested in taking on that much responsibility in SL; I often work on financial software in my RL job, don't care to do that in SL, too. Most of the people involved are honest, and more enthusiastic about carrying out the experiment than looking for huge financial returns.


5.

". RMT gives people the ability to balance their entertainment time and real life. "

In games like WOW and EVE-Online, it specifically allows SOME players to do this at the expense of others who have to toil in mind numbing boredom to get that money.

Lets not mince words. Its exploitation..

I *KNOW* people who do this. One guy I know is currently in a right pickle after he got caught and now wonders how he's going to pay his rent. But he hates every damn minute of the grind. Who the hell wants to work at roughly $5 an hour.

"
f you impede your players' attempts to balance real life and virtual life, they'll quit your prison-like world, though few operators have managed to cause more than slight annoyance. When people make gnomes fall from the sky to get their message out, it's time to quit pissing them off and accept it.
"

See this is the thing. Whilst a bunch of boring academic beards, and dot-com silly money people wax lyrical about SL, the over whelming reason I get for why I've *never* met a single person who enjoyed second life was that they simply found the whole finance angle a turn off.

People dont WANT to 'balance' their play time and work time. They want to *ESCAPE* it.

Regardless, its not something I need to take an activist position on. Second Life's bubble is going to burst, and a lot of people are going to lose money. I hope they learn their lesson.

6.

Somewhat unrelated, but might be of relevance: Portugal just created the first mediation center in Second Life.

7.

And thus my objection and even calling a Second Life minigame a "stock market" at all. Fine if you're presenting it as some kind of stock market game. But I get the distinct feeling that some involved have convinced themselves that pretend stock games are legitimate proxies for real equity markets -- or even some kind of futuristic vision of the evolution of today's equity markets.

In actuality SL stock games are not very much like the real thing in fundamental, technical, legal or financial terms.

It's all kind of moot anyway. The L$ will soon be worth very little; probably very very little. My original analysis was based purely on demand growth analysis. I hadn't factored in the loss of over half of the L$ demand by sudden policy change.

8.

A dirty cheater wrote:

If you impede your players' attempts to balance real life and virtual life, they'll quit your prison-like world

That's obvious. WOW has been the hardest cracking down on RMT and they obviously are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy due to all the players they've driven off.

As to SL stock markets. They're a joke. Anything sufficient to require offering stock should have stock offered in the real world. An in game stock exchange is as real as an in game combat sim.

9.

anon said:

"WOW has been the hardest cracking down on RMT and they obviously are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy due to all the players they've driven off."

Got any data on that? I find it difficult to believe that Blizzard is near bankruptcy.

10.

Kami Harbinger>RMT gives people the ability to balance their entertainment time and real life.

You didn't finish the sentence. "RMT gives people the ability to balance their entertainment time and real life against the entertainment time of others".

If RMT is so harmless, why don't game companies just GIVE AWAY the gold and the items to whoever wants them? They could do so easily. If you're worried that you can't spend enough time playing to keep up with your peers, you just go to the replicator guy, ask for a gazillion gold pieces and a big sword, and there you are. You got exactly what you wanted and it cost you nothing.

Why are you arguing for RMT and not for free phat lewt?

Richard

11.

A distinction should be made between RMT (Real Money Trade) and RCE (Real Cash Economy).

A platform such as Second Life is a RCE Virtual World. It is ingrained, supported and made to be a Real Cash Economy.

RMT is a term that was created to describe trading virtual goods for real money outside of a sanctioned in-game system. Games that have RMT issues are not made to nor equipped to deal with the same issues facing RCE developers.

In my view RCE and RMT are fundementally different and should be addressed as such.

*steps off soapbox* :)

12.

WOW has been the hardest cracking down on RMT and they obviously are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy due to all the players they've driven off.

That's sarcasm, right? Vivendi, a public company (and thus required to disclose some of its financial dealings) just issued a press release that Blizzard's 2Q income for this year is up 29% over last year to about $288M -- putting them well on track to do over a billion dollars in revenue this year. And they announced that WoW just recently hit 9 million subscribers (not registered users or something lame like that). Bankrupt? Yeah, right.

Richard, you continue to draw a zero-sum game where none exists: "RMT gives people the ability to balance their entertainment time and real life against the entertainment time of others."

Now, if RMT is against the EULA the game operator has set up, it's against the rules, period. I'm not trying to defend those who do that. Nor am I defending farmers who aggressively take over an area and keep others from being able to play as they choose.

But RMT per se does not mean that if I buy a sword with dollars and you get one for killing a monster that I've harmed your entertainment experience in any way -- any more than it means that you've robbed me of my money! In each case, we made a choice as to how to spend our time or our money. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, your choice of how to play the game neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. You're creating an issue where none exists; it's not zero-sum.

You asked, If RMT is so harmless, why don't game companies just GIVE AWAY the gold and the items to whoever wants them? They could do so easily.

Sure, they could. The argument against doing so is more psychological than economic (though the one leads to the other). By the same token, why not just give everyone who wants it all the experience points they want? Game companies certainly could do so, but it would ruin the game experience, just as simply handing out uber-items would ruin it.

Are those really the best arguments you have against (sanctioned) RMT?

Notice too that this is all pretty far removed from the OP: the problems in SL have to do with a presumed liquidity (by some people at least) of the Linden faux-currency that may not in fact be there -- whether due to fraud, an illiquid market, or a market made much more illiquid due to the fraud and the resulting lack of confidence in those holding L$.

13.

Well, I admit this comment thread hasn't gone quite the direction I envisioned...perhaps inspired by the runescape spam message (which I left on, because subsequent comments have referred to it), everyone has been talking about the pros and cons of RMT.

Well, in SL, real money trade is a given, and I would argue is actually the backbone of much of the action. My focus right now is more on the regulation. In the spirit of recent posts on social contracts and rights of avatars, is it reasonable to expect either full "caveat emptor" or to have residents regulate themselves? Or does LL really need to step in?

And is it crazy for me to try to step in, as I proposed at the end of my post?


14.

Robert, "caveat emptor" is essentially what the SL TOS says now. It's there, but that doesn't mean people believe it, or will just say "oh, gee, I was mistaken - those L$ aren't really worth anything after all. Silly me." The Linden PR and rhetoric around this point hasn't helped things at all, obviously.

So I'd have to agree, RMT is a given in SL, and it's by no means surprising to me that with real money at stake, enterprising hackers have found one way or another to make disproportionate gains -- "easy money."

I would love to see residents in SL fully regulate themselves. I believe this will happen eventually in one virtual world or another. But right now I don't believe they have the software structures -- the process, social, and community-related "prims," if you will -- necessary to create sufficient regulatory mechanisms. And I think having Linden step in would be disastrous for them as a company, in part because it would open them to enough legal exposure that their lawyers would (rightly) stop them from doing so.

Regarding your suggested student project, it would likely be an incredibly educational exercise at the very least. However, I'm somewhat dubious of doing it "for real" -- putting the students and whatever they produce in the line of fire -- for a few reasons: first, as I said I don't believe the world construction and scripting methods available in SL enable you to create an actual regulatory agency. Second, I would be very concerned about having students try to put one together: remember, you're effectively dealing in real dollars. Would you want to have these students write the backbone for your bank where you deposit your paycheck and pay your mortgage? And third, how do you maintain the project and keep it going across semesters, during finals, and over years as students come and go? The only thing worse than not having a regulatory agency present is having one that works for a while and then breaks down as interest in maintaining it wanes.

15.

SL does need to be regulated. But not by Linden Research, Inc. Linden is party to the asymmetric system.

New regulations do not really need to be created to deal with anything going on in Second Life or other "virtual worlds". Most of this has been hashed out in internet e-commerce and international intellectual property cases and such. Just apply the obvious laws and regs that already apply to anyone else to Second Life.

All the fanfare and academic love aside, what Linden has done is no different than if any of us set up a "Virtual Mayberry Bank Game Platform" on a server in our garage. Even if we had a EULA that said it was just a "game bank" and that your BarneyBucks weren't really worth anything, and that our customers were responsible for their little Banks, and all related liabilities.

How long do you think you could run such a scheme before the brown Ford with little hubcaps pulled up outside your house? Is Second Life different just because the virtual Mayberrians have supersexy cartoons?

16.

And is it crazy for me to try to step in, as I proposed at the end of my post?

I think it is a great idea to have repudable independant people such as you suggest try to come up with a solution. However, it must be done in the right way. Here are a few things I would like to see if you embark:

1. Real Names - In my opinion everything starts here. Trust and credibility are fundemental with something of this nature. Using real names and supplying background will get things off on the right foot.

2. Include everyone you can in the discussions - Update people via the various fansites and blogs. Solicit feedback. To get people to buy in you have to reach out to their homes and include them.

3. Cover all current and future RCE Worlds - with people beginning to cross polinate this issue is becomming global across worlds. Any policy must include the current major RCEs (Second Life, IMVU, There.com and Entropia Universe). Currency trading is occurring between these worlds and regulation is sorely needed.

4. Get the major players onboard - Anshe Chung, WSE, NEVERDIE etc. If these people don't buy in you haven't a shot.

5. Try to get the developers to endorse your creed (Linden, Mindark, Makena, Etc...)

Those are my suggestions. Good luck!

17.

Richard says, “RMT gives people the ability to balance their entertainment time and real life against the entertainment time of others."

Mike responds, “But RMT per se does not mean that if I buy a sword with dollars and you get one for killing a monster that I've harmed your entertainment experience in any way -- any more than it means that you've robbed me of my money! In each case, we made a choice as to how to spend our time or our money. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, your choice of how to play the game neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. You're creating an issue where none exists; it's not zero-sum.”

While the game is certainly not zero-sum, the effects of RMT are completely contingent upon the environment and community in which it takes place and these are as multiple and diverse as those members of the community. Externalities resulting from RMT can be both positive and negative. While Castronova will deny this, placing any positive gains solely within the market itself, one positive/negative externality involves network effects. The problem results from asymmetric expectations. Not all users want the same game. Thus the problem in theory comes down to providing users the right outlets for their styles of play. As I ranted about concerning antisocial contracts, why not allow separate communities to form within an overall larger framework? Why not allow server specific sanctioned RMT? The SOE experiment showed that this had no effect on the amount of trade on non-sanctioned servers. Why make this change then? The benefit comes from a reduction in customer service costs. The SOE experiment also revealed that CS costs fell 30%. Legitimate markets drive away fraud and duping and developers benefit by embracing the secondary markets. Auction culture at its finest. Yet the externalities still exist, how to form a multiplicity of gaming environments. Well, games based on social interaction, guilds, and community solve this problem: hello instancing! As far as PVP pawnage goes, institute the same stats, armor and gear for competition. Truly level the playing field and focus on what really matters: team work and learning how to really play the game rather than buy virtual wealth and success. Reinvent the wheel, take out the grinding mechanisms.

PS. Sorry for the derail continuation.

18.

@ Robert : " So here are my questions to Terra Novans. If, in response to my prior posts on TN, you thought SL markets were a game, are you having fun yet? "

Yes :) And you're not having fun exactely because you thought SL is not a game .
I sugest you next time read the EULA/ToS.


"Finally, what do you think of the following proposal? I pull together a group of students here at Cornell from computer science, business/econ, and law, and give them academic credit to design, develop and ultimately operate a regulatory enterprise that would scope out appropriate requirements on the operations of exchanges, required disclosures (from both exchanges and listed companies), and the like. "

What is the proposal, actually ? You wanna make a new game , SL-like , or do you wanna re-write the existing Laws and Regulations appliable to Financial Markets ? I'm not sure you can see the difference ...

19.

Is it really a game when a bunch of people get ripped off? It's definitely not a "fun" game.

20.

Oh really ?! Look here : www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19997367

Now, what, if a virtual priest will sodomize your virtual child virtual avatar in SL , you gonna sue the Pope and the Vatican ?! Just because it happends in the real world too ?! Are you sure you're over 12 yo and are you sure you know what an EULA is ?

21.

Oh, and : if you buy a Juice but instead of drinking it you pour it all over your head, to me it's funny ; to you it may be dangerous , but in this case you need medical treatment and legal restrictions.

22.

Mike said: "But RMT per se does not mean that if I buy a sword with dollars and you get one for killing a monster that I've harmed your entertainment experience in any way."

I disagree. The single most fundamental difference between online RPGs and solo ones is the involvement of other players; it's what puts the MM in MMORPG, eh? I have no problem with cheating in single-player games. Rock on with your bad self.

But levels, loot, equipment, etc. in a multi-player game equates to many implications about the ability of the player behind the toon, and explicitly drives assumptions about ability, preference, time-in-game, etc.

So, when Player 1 does not RMT, and achieves level 70 and all kinds of cool stuff to go with it, and Player 2 buys his way there in 1/10th the time/effort... What is Player 3 to think when approaching either of them? "Is this a true level 70 player? Or a level 70 toon that was bought by a level 7 player?"

RMT is, per se, a lie about how well (or at least much) the buyer has played the game. That lie impacts other players.

23.

That's based on your particular assumption, Andy, not in anything in the game. If someone else doesn't play as well as you, why that's the case is irrelevant to you (except that you may not want to group with them again).

If I come in with my level 70 and then play like an idiot, there are many possibilities:

  • I didn't really play the character up, I bought it or the items
  • I'm letting my kid brother play the character
  • I'm sick or hung over
  • I'm having a bad day
  • I've been on vacation and haven't really remembered how to play this complex character again

Which one is it? You have no way of knowing. I may never have bought anything via RMT at all -- or maybe way back at level 10, I bought a few gold pieces. You have no way of knowing, and there's no way that it can affect your game. You are presuming knowledge you cannot have, and really, what it comes down to is the continued cry of "but I earned this armor!" With the always unspoken "by spending countless hours clicking the mouse in this game."

I ask you: is the person who says, "dude, no, I earned this armor by working for the cash that paid for it at an actual job" wrong in any way? His "earning" is via actual work. Your "earning" is by playing a game.

Long-time gamers value time-in-game over money-in-game. Okay. But that's not anyone else's problem, any more than what hours of the day you play, what types of characters you play, or anything else. You equate RMT to a "lie" specifically and only because you equate "cool gear" with "lots of time in-game." Okay -- but just as you're making a personal value judgment, others are free to make a different one that values money-in-game. It's no lie, it's just not the "gamer way." Welcome to the broader market.

(Disclaimer: once again, I'm not defending RMT that violates a game's rules, or those who engage in botting, farming, or other aggressive behaviors that limit the enjoyment of other players around them.)

24.

RMT is, per se, a lie about how well (or at least much) the buyer has played the game. That lie impacts other players.

The same could be applied to all sorts of things in real-life. All sorts of stuff: Prestigious colleges with legacy admittance. "Home made" pasta made with a pasta machine. The same for "home made" ice cream. Classical music for dummies along with those pre-selected CD libraries of performances. The 5 Minute Bartender guide. Buying a restored 68 Mustang from the guy who restored it. Kids who's parents buy them multi-thousand dollar standardized test preparation programs.

All of these things produce outcomes which are largely indiscernible to the casual 3rd party observer. You can usually tell if you probe further, but who is really being denied here? Ironically, this is kind of an Ayn Rand Objectivist argument in disguise, the premise being that no one engages in anything for self-satisfaction, only for outwardly visible "capital" of some sort. For the first time here, I think I'll disagree with that level of "capitalistic" argument. Sometimes people just do stuffs 'cause they enjoy it. Or as Grandma used to tell me growing up in the Midwest: "if you worry less about what everyone else is doing you might enjoy what you're doing more" (ok, she said 'wearing', but the point is the same).

25.

Andy: RMT is, per se, a lie about how well (or at least much) the buyer has played the game. That lie impacts other players.

Yeah, I think many players feel that way and would prefer a RMT free environment for cultural reasons, and it isn't all that difficult to think up games which would be destroyed by RMT either.

But of course, some players might share a character, then they would only have played 50% each, it would be a lie too... Or a sister borrows a character from her brother to see what it is like. Another lie.

Would it be better if the operator charged different prices for different races though? Say, you could purchase a troll for 500USD and a human for 50USD? At least then there is no lie??

26.

Amarilla,

Obviously I touched a nerve there. My point is that Linden Labs is disingenuous. They claim that SL is a game, but they also go to great pains to advertise its money making capabilities. Why else flog those charts documenting how many US dollars have moved through the game in the last 24 hours?

So SL is a game, but it's also an opportunity to make money. Except of course that it really isn't. There are none of the protections in the game that exist in the real world for enforcing contracts, labor law, etc. If you do work for someone in SL and they vanish without paying you, tough luck.

LL recently banned casinos. Way back when I and some friends who do a little consulting outside of our day jobs were poking around SL to see if we could uncover any opportunities. One of the first things that we noticed was that casino gambling was one of the biggest markets. The other thing we noticed was that there is no gaming commission. When you visit Vegas you do so with the assurances that the games aren't rigged because there is a regulatory body which guarantees that. There is nothing comparable in SL--no Las Vegas gaming commission, no SEC, no FDA, etc.--and my guess is that there never will be since LL has zero interest in assuming any regulatory responsibilities. Why shouldn't a gaming machine in SL have a little script logic for maximizing your losses and minimizing your winnings? How do you know that that poker table you're playing at isn't logging all of your hands and bets to a database?

I would say that, absent the common place protections for financial transactions which people depend upon in the real world, SL is no place to make money.

27.

@Lewy

I found the same thing, only a year ago. You'd have thought I said I was bigger than jeebus from the SL cultists' response, including threats of violence.

SL has always been a parody of something much darker. Fear not SL Faithful, your end is neigh (now that about half your economy has gone *poof*).

28.

@ lewy : old news.... If you think what LL does is false advertising, then sue them .

If you think SL is an online-scheme , ask your govt to ban SL in your country.

If you've played SL , got hooked , immersed ....if you lost your mood , leave the game; if you lost your cash, cry more.

29.

Sorry for derailing your story Robert :(

30.

Randolfe's link to his post criticizing the SL economy is fascinating (as is its extensive comment thread), and goes into detail on many of the points being made here. A key thrust of the criticism is that Linden touts SL as a virtual economy in which everyone can become rich, but that (1) Lindens aren't really a currency, because Linden Lab manipulates the exchange rate and because there is too little liquidity to allow conversion to RL currency, (2) the "economy" really isn't one because it lacks even the most basic forms of inworld law and regulation, and (3) SL is basically a multi-level-marketing (MLM) scheme like Amway, in which the early arrivals exploit the later arrivals.

Many have reacted to randolfe's post by depicting SL as an "emerging economy," to which randolfe responds "not according to typical definitions, which require emerging economies to have sufficiently well-developed currencies, legal institutions, etc.

My take is SL is a nascent economy which really hasn't emerged yet, in any meaningful way, and is hobbled by being controlled by a single corporation (LL). The good news is that both of these problems have remedies in *some* virtual world, though it might not be SL.

The economy will emerge when people decide to develop meaningful regulation. Nate Randall provides some advice for doing this successfully, and I very well might try. The arival of new virtual worlds with similar capitalist focus might allow SL wealth to be more portable, but it seems more likely to me that this will happen when we see compatible VWs run by different sets of owners.

Two more observations: First, I see one important difference between SL and Amway. Two people who sell Amway don't have much ability to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges--both have the same items and skills. In contrast, two people who want to have mix work and play in SL can make one can use Lindens to exchange clothing for dancing scripts, etc.

Second, while everyone has been talking about the demise of gambling, which may have caused a collapse of a major bank (or pyramid scheme, depending on who you talk to), few have been talking about another major change on the horizon: hundreds of educators are going to be bringing thousands of college students into SL over the coming academic year. I seems plausible that many of these students will become active in SL's economy in a variety of roles, whether as for-profit builders or not-for-profit regulators (like I might be).

Oh, and @Amarilla: Personally, I am having a *lot* of fun in SL. :)

31.

"...few have been talking about another major change on the horizon: hundreds of educators are going to be bringing thousands of college students into SL over the coming academic year."

ROFL ! I can imagine a recently graduated student applying for a job at my Company :

" ...i've studied the law, the economy and the finances in Second Life ; that's my education and academic expertise. "

32.

Mike asked: "I ask you: is the person who says, "dude, no, I earned this armor by working for the cash that paid for it at an actual job" wrong in any way? His "earning" is via actual work. Your "earning" is by playing a game."

= steroids are OK.

"Dude, no, I earned this Olympic medal by working for the cash to buy the steroids at an actual job."

= theft is OK.

"Dude, no. I earned this TV by breaking a window and yanking it out of the store display."

If you are arguing that different means to the same end are equal, regardless of how they got there... that's a pretty bold argument.

All the examples you site of ways in which you could badly play a level 70 character are valid. But, again, you're mixing up cause and effect, and assuming that the same results are equally valid, regardless of the way someone got there.

If a game allows RMT, then I don't care. Knock yourself out. That's within the rules, then, and it doesn't bother me at all. Anyone playing the game then has to make the assumption that another player's "score" (experience, level, equipment, etc.) has either been earned in-game, or paid for. That's not my point at all.

In games like WoW, RMT and bots are expressly forbidden by the rules. Players shouldn't have to make the decision to play the game with time or with money, if the money option isn't worked into the game design by the publisher. It makes the playing field uneven, tilting it towards those who feel like RMTing.

Now, you can argue that the grind favors people who spend time in the game over those with money. That's true... but the game was designed, and the rules were written, to provide play balance for many, many players based on the "time" game, not the "money" game.

Would you be OK with the devs of a game giving special treatment to their friends? Simply bumping their buddies' characters up a bunch of levels or granting them big stuff? You could then say, "I earned my character by being friends with a dev." In RL, much of where we get to is "who we know," as well as by paying for stuff.

To me, it's another form of cheating, albeit one based on social connections instead of money connections.

As to randolfe's list of things that "are not as they seem," I'm going to disagree. I know that legacies, pasta machines, test prep, etc. are all part of those worlds. If someone invites me to their home for "homemade pasta" and uses a machine to make it... well, I might find that: a) neat, if I like kitchen devices, or; b) heinous, if I'm a pasta purist. It's up to me and my friend.

But if a restaurant advertises "homemade pasta" and then buys it from the store... that's a problem; false advertising. Same with someone who puts on their resume that they graduated from University X, when they didn't. Or someone who pays a hacker/forger to produce records indicating such.

Yes, there are many degrees of "fuzziness" in the world relating to the equations between causes and effects. One major appeal of games, however, is that they reduce fuzziness in specific ways in order to generate an experience that is targeted to a particular set of skills, chances and behaviors.

As has been said many times here, you can easily "win" a chess game by whacking your opponent on the head, and, while he's dazed, sweeping his pieces from the board. You could also pay him enough to throw or concede the game. Neither of these, however, counts as "winning" or being better at chess, though the end state -- his king gone -- is the same.

I'd be happy to see RMT flourish in games and on servers where it's allowed. I think that many of the arguments for wanting to skip parts of the grind are valid, from a single-player "fun" perspective. But if the game wasn't designed to have it within that ol' Magic Circle, then doing it is harmful, per se, because it circumvents rules and systems that were designed into the play experience. The argument that *your* experience becomes better by breaking the rules only means that you are experiencing a positive benefit; not that others or the system is better off.

33.

Robert: hundreds of educators are going to be bringing thousands of college students into SL over the coming academic year. I seems plausible that many of these students will become active in SL's economy in a variety of roles, whether as for-profit builders or not-for-profit regulators (like I might be).

A note of caution, considering the third role of "experimental behavior" with unexpected results as often happens on college campuses. I trust you've heard of Linden ejecting Woodbury University, island and all? The island was reportedly summarily deleted due to Woodbury students engaging in behaviors said to include "incidents of grid attacks, racism and intolerance, persistent harassment of other residents, and crashing the Woodbury University region itself while testing their abusive scripts."

The Second Life Herald reported on this with a lot of detail, and in a second">http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2007/07/woodbury-univ-1.html">second interesting story that dealt with the question of whether WU was really a university at all (it is, but the question was a natural one in the online space). Another article on this is available at the Chronicle of Higher Education behind their premium wall.

From the Chronicle:

“Linden Lab, the company that runs Second Life, simply blanked Woodbury out of existence sometime during the last week of June.
The company took the drastic step, officials said, after administrators for the university's area ignored warnings to stop avatars -- digital characters -- affiliated with its region from engaging in disruptive and hostile behavior.”
As you might expect, this left something of a bitter taste in the mouths of the Woodbury folks. In the Herald's interview with one of them, she said they were writing a book about the incident and that "Second Life is not the peachy euphoria that it's advertised to be, it's a facist company-controlled cookie-cutter world where all the citizens are expected to comply and conform to the model of life that the Lindens have outlined."

I have no idea what went on with the student’s activities, nor how much time, effort, and money the students cost Linden, or that the University lost with this deletion – but the http://theubiquitouslibrarian.typepad.com/the_ubiquitous_librarian/2007/06/second_thoughts.html”>positive reaction of one educator to how the WU students had built a space “for students, by students” shows that the University’s efforts at least started well. This is also reflected in the comment from a WU representative: "99% of the RL schools in SL are nothing but boring models of a RL university. WU dared to be different."

Now the Woodbury story may be unique, and it may well be that the Lindens acted exactly right in deleting the island. But both the empty ghost towns that litter SL and the potential for losing your entire island (and, reportedly, fees your department paid in advance for that island) are fates any educator has to consider before ramping up a large effort in which the students play a major role.

34.

@andy

There's a different sort of Wookie argument in the chess analogy: it's up to each player to know the real rules of the game, despite the posted, stated, or even expected conventional rules. Just like Realpolitik will whack you in a game of politics, Realregeln will whack you in a game of chess against a Wookie.

35.

@everyone

Sorry for the POST glitch. Please remove redundant comments.

@Robert Bloomfield

In fairness, I wrote that article over half a year ago, and the events I referred to then took place 6 months prior to that.

I wrote a follow up article, much more quantitatively analytical, in response to the disappointing criticism I received on this forum. In that article I revised my "ponzi" and "MLM" references and instead cast the entire Second Life system as a HYIP. If you're interested, just follow the trackbacks from the original article or look under "virtual worlds" on my blog.

I don't really follow Second Life or virtual world economics closely anymore. I'm just very interested to see how the SL drama plays out, and there's a lot of buzz out here in SF about who's going to buy Linden.

36.

Mike Sellers>Richard, you continue to draw a zero-sum game where none exists

It does exist. It doesn't if you only look at the financial transactions, sure, but it exists if you look at the fun people get from the game. Or are you saying that RMT doesn't affect one iota people who don't engage in it, and therefore they're all complaining about nothing?

>But RMT per se does not mean that if I buy a sword with dollars and you get one for killing a monster that I've harmed your entertainment experience in any way

It doesn't per se, but it does if I play the game on the understanding that people who get swords do so as a result of playing by the rules. For example, it takes away any bragging rights I might have had for getting the sword through play.

>your choice of how to play the game neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

You could use the same argument to say that PhDs can be bought and sold. What does it hurt you if you study for 3 years of postgraduate research to get a PhD when other people can buy one of someone who already did the hard work? By your definition, that would be zero-sum too, so why is it that most countries have laws against selling qualifications?

>By the same token, why not just give everyone who wants it all the experience points they want? Game companies certainly could do so, but it would ruin the game experience, just as simply handing out uber-items would ruin it.

Yes, it would indeed ruin the game experience. Believe it or not, many players feel the same way about RMT, too - it ruins the game experience for them when other people do it.

Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no justification ever for people to want to play a game where other players can't buy stuff for real money? That it's always fine to do so?

>Are those really the best arguments you have against (sanctioned) RMT?

I have no arguments at all against sanctioned RMT, except insofar that laws brought out to regulate it might inadvertently apply to unsanctioned RMT worlds and mess them up as a side-effect. If designers want sanctioned RMT, that's up to them. What I object to is RMT that the designers/developers don't want, but get all the same. That's what I'm arguing against here, not the concept of RMT in general. Using Nate Randall's terminology, I'm against RMT but RCE is fine.

Richard.

37.

I don't get it : what's the difference, if any at all ?!

RMT : i want to use your virtual goods ,skills/items/estates, i pay you some money and you transfer those virtual goods from your alt to my alt; or even the entire account. Or i mail you the money and you say : " lolz , sucker, you've been busted , hasta la vista ".

RCE : this time, is the developer who says "...EULA , sucker , hasta la vista ".

RMT compared to RCE :

RMT : i can lose my money in two ways : you keep my money but refuse to transfer the virtual goods to my alt ; the developer decides to kick me off , for any reason ,for no reason , for the reason that i've engaged in a RMT or because today is Sunday. Or because Rosedale /Jan went to jail and LL/MindArk went bankruptcy and the servers down.

RCE : the developer decides to....see above.

Advantage of RMT : i can buy virtual goods , as $L/PEDs/therebucks/wowgold/magic swords , for cheaper , directly from another player or via a dedicated website.

Advantage of RCE : i avoid the player,a potentially scammer , and i'm dealing directly with the developer , wich according to it's own EULA is a potential scammer too.

RMT : the common sense asks : " do you actually have any recourse to get your money back if the seller becomes unable or refuse to give you the goods you've paid for ? Do you wannna risk your money on the assumption that you'll get some fun for the money you pay ? "

RCE : see above.

Now, developer's point of view :


- i do not allowe RMT in my game, because i expect my revenues to come from players having fun in my game and willing to pay a monthly subscription in order to continue their fun; i expect my players to value their character and to develop its subjective value due skilling-up and constucting social ties. I expect my customers to say : "" i am a good gamer , just look at my WoW character's level : it took me time , efforts ,dedication ,discipline, understanding of the game , real life skills , to make myself such a nice alt;and i'll pay the next month's $ 15 fee , to have fun playing my WoW character ,and to meet my guild m8s ; WoW is a game where my real life skills and efforts as a gamer does count ; in WoW i can show more my qualities and less my wallet "".

- i do allowe RMT/RCE, because i expect my revenues to come from scammers and from those rich idiots who believes that depositing money into my bank account is an investment ; also from those willing to show that they have enough money to " buy " the high-end virtual gear and the most skilled alt; also i expect my revenues to come from students , from academics , from researchers and from using my own alts and the inside infos i have. I will pursue any form of misleading and false advertising , trying to make them not read what EULA says : i owe everything in game, the alt, the skills, the virtual items and " your " account ; i never sell you anything, you ' re solely transferring your cash into my bank account in order to have fun accessing my game; and i don't even sell you time-access : i reserve the right to seize your entire account 1 minute after you gave me your cash , it's there in the EULA you've agreed .No refunds ever granted . In my game, i don't sell fun : i sell false hopes for a fast easy buck, rigged casinos , online gambling and porn . And a heaven for any immoral and unethical commercial activity . I do so, because i know who have the big money in the Real Life and i want them to spend some in my game.

38.

Firstly, it is clear for me that what we had saw happening at the WSE is regarding the wrong doing of an individual or a group of individuals that could be charged for felony offense.

Richard Bartle says that the one who is having fun it is the one that stole the money. So, as we would not allow this situation in RL, we should act accordingly it in-world too. On top of that, if those actions are against, as I think they are, the SL ToS, LL has to take part on it.

Regarding exchanges regulatory body, they are part of the solution, although I think LL should not get into it. The other part is, basically, blow the whistle if there is any wrong doing around, no matter what regulatory body you have. Indeed, what it is the actual regulatory body, SLEC, is clearly not enough. And it is not enough not only because SLEC actually has a structure where it laid towards the existing exchanges as much as it seems it does not have the knowledge needed to draw the line regarding the very subjects they are dealing with.

So, Robert's proposal brings solution to what it could be needed, and I really think that a step forward it is needed here. If there are limitations regarding technology or schedules or others matters, it does not make invalid the solution, I think, just it is needed to take in considerations that constrains. Regarding if they are students, I think we may forget that, as far as I know, some of the first security protocols implemented on banks, beginning of web's era, was made by university departments. Nevertheless, I agree that it should be worked out as a long term commitment because it is, mainly, a reputation development.

*From here down it is not directly related to this post :)*

However we are bringing into this discussion different topics that are relate to our different views on the subject, but being it the economic side of SL, WW, Eve, ... but they hardly add to what was about the post. Nevertheless, I step on it.

Mostly what I see in some of these comments it is bad feelings about these being monetize; a bit like if we were talking about sex in others audiences. However, instead of putting all in the same basket, we could take in consideration what Nate Randall wrote about RMT and RCE. If an individual could monetize her skills in world and this is not against the EULA/ToS of that game, I think that it should not being seen it as a wrong doing just because we don't like it or wouldn't do it.

Although those with PMFL (Positive Monthly Linden Dollar Flow) almost have double within last semester, on most of the cases it occurs on the fewer than 50 USD range. I go here with two thoughts, the first one if it is needed to regulate this income, we could think about regulating, let's say, baby sitting and might use our same conclusion. If we think about the then you see that naturally they have come to their situations against RL standards. I would not totally draw a conclusion here because I think they will be others that could need a to do so.

The other is related as whether we think that an individual is better off putting her time in RL activities to earn a living, besides a paternalistic or naive stand, we are not taking in consideration about what that individual make as emotional income. This is a shortcoming of economy theory where profit maximizing it is thought in a very simplistic way.

In addition, there has been comments related to scam economies; if we were to consider a scam economy those which in a panic situation or under an important backlash would crash leaving honest players in the cold, we could, for instance, consider paying a close attention to all the world economies that run huge deficits. A scam situation is where a part takes advantage of the other on fake, made out proposal to achieve that end. Everything that looks as a pyramid is not a scam scheme.

39.

Sorry, this paragraph got wrong in previous comment:

Although those with PMFL (Positive Monthly Linden Dollar Flow) almost have double within last semester, on most of the cases it occurs on the fewer than 50 USD range. I go here with two thoughts, the first one if it is needed to regulate this income, we could think about regulating, let's say, baby sitting and might use our same conclusion. If we think about the "barons" then you see that naturally they have come to "legalize" their situations against RL standards. I would not totally draw a conclusion here because I think they will be others that could need a "regulatory push" to do so.

40.

Just wanted to mention that a number of the posts here about RMT presume a bright line distinction between acting "outside the game" and acting "within the game," and furthermore implicitly tie this distinction, unproblematically, to a distinction between using money (outside) and spending time (inside). But as Mike and others have noted, this distinction breaks down and yields no clear answers about "fairness" or distinguishing between in-game and out of game. Is it fair for me to leverage my social connections out of game, via advice or even having my toon played for me, to advance more rapidly than others? Is it fair for me to leverage my previously-gained competence with other MMOs to advance more quickly? People use the wide array of resources at their disposal when they seek to accomplish something, and money is not the only way they do it. Appealing to the rules is of little help. They don't (can't) cover every way in which people will creatively use the resources at their disposal to get ahead.

NB: This does not mean that all there is to participating in these games is the highly strategic machinations of those seeking to maximize their "capital." There is something to the notion that we also do things for their own sake. But there is no simple way to classify, broadly, human activity as belonging to one or the other (such as the common temptation to classify action in the game as, by definition, an end in and of itself, and other actions as strategic).

41.

Dude, that line distinction is clear and bright and i wanna keep it that way. You're offering me a game, a MMORPG, so i pay you a fee or i join for free and i wanna have fun and profit in your game. I dont't give a dime on fairness , not on internet. You aint gonna come to Albania to arrest me and i'm not gonna sue you in the USA.

You'll do anything you can to trick me to give you my money, and i'll do anything i can to profit from your game.

You gonna tell me lies , like " ownership ", " research ", " commerce ", " investment ", " Stocks Excanges ", " 100000 billion players " , " RCE ",just to make me give you my money.

I'm gonna RMT, hack, exploit, farm, bot,scam, just to profit from your game and from your player-base.

Get used to it, or take a real job, or cry more.

There's no difference between " RCE " ( Rectum Consensual Enlargement ? ) and Nigerian scams.

Only ,this time, we're smarter. Pwned :P.

42.

Um, Amarilla, as far as I can tell you're basically making part of my point, except for the fact that I don't think it makes sense to see players (and makers) as *only* motivated by the aim of getting the most for the least. The other part, which you don't mention, is that money is not the only resource that can be exploited toward the ends that you describe -- there are also social connections, cultural competencies, and certain credentials (such as being given access to beta versions, among others).

43.

Thomas said: "People use the wide array of resources at their disposal when they seek to accomplish something, and money is not the only way they do it. Appealing to the rules is of little help. They don't (can't) cover every way in which people will creatively use the resources at their disposal to get ahead."

On the one hand (as we covered at length in the past, Thomas; again, thanks for that rewarding conversation), I agree that understanding the nature of any social system will require bringing all kinds of tools and views to the table. We've talked before about the difference between a father and son playing chess in a way so as to teach the boy (i.e., Dad doesn't kick your ass outright every time), vs. playing "for realsies."

However... even when Dad plays Jr. and doesn't want to win outright -- when the goals of the game for him are broader than simple "winning" -- there are restrictions on what would be reasonable methods of reaching those goals. For example, for me to tell my boy, "OK... for the next few turns, your pawns can move like queens," would be, well... dumb. Unless you are seeking to teach absurdity, out-of-the-box thinking, etc. Assuming the uber-goal of "teaching my kid chess," and the subtext of "letting him win a bit to see more of the depth of the game," then under-playing by bending the actual rules doesn't make sense; I'm not saying it's impossible, obviously, just that it's not helpful.

The same can be said, I think, of RMT vs. the other ways that a game is more than the sum of its rules. For example, the experience we bring from other games, if it is an advantage, is one that can then provide for social positives in the new game; with my experience, I can suggest things to noobs. They can benefit from the "unfairness" of my knowledge.

The same holds true of social relationships from outside the game brought into the game. This is one way new friendships are formed in these spaces, neh? My buddy, who is great at WoW, invites me in and asks the rest of the guild to cut me some slack on the requirements because he vouches for my OK-ness with respect to the guild's personality, play style, etc. That is well within the bounds of what is *intended* as a play experience; friends let friends dork up.

Almost all of these "inequalities" are ones that, IMHO, add to the value of the game on broader levels, whereas non-sanctioned RMT only provides narrow, specific benefits to individuals or groups.

44.

I understand that reasoning, Andy, but now (and to me, this is a good thing) we're no longer arguing about formal categories as dictating our conclusions about RMT. Instead, we're in the much trickier ground of trying to establish what those shared expectations *are*, in different places and times. Here, we may end up with assertions and counter-assertions, but we won't establish the rightness or wrongness of RMT outside of particular contexts.

For some MMOs, and in particular for how those MMOs operate and how their players come to see it, RMT might be highly and justifiably objectionable. For others, this might not be the case. The claim that RMT creates problematic outcomes for other players in WoW is on the whole pretty weak to me, because the world itself is so impervious to lasting change (gates of AQ being perhaps the sole exception); virtually everything resets and is available to every player. What is more, the architectural barriers for existing social groups to be able game together easily (no sidekick, etc options) make RMT an important option to group play.

WoW PvP perhaps weighs in on the other side, since it's the part of the game where skill *can* matter more. This is because direct competition between players tends to drive competence to the forefront, and the outcomes are contingent but persistent -- you can't simply reset your BG battle against another player/faction, the results are there. It is here that RMT, to the extent it enables a player to leverage money to benefit themselves enough to defeat a more skilled, but poorer player, might pose a detriment. I'm not sure, given how the best gear is for most part BoP, RMT even allows for an unfair advantage here (perhaps through things like high-level enchants, but then, I'd have to object on the same grounds to someone getting those enchants from high-level guildmates for their L19 rogue).

But the point is that we have to get this fine-grained about the specific circumstances in specific MMOs in order to be able to say something about the effects of RMT.

45.

Oh, I should also add that there is no reason to expect that cultural competence or social connections, as resources for players, bring only social goods to the table. They can just as easily be used to generate practices of exclusion, etc.

46.

In addition, there has been comments related to scam economies; if we were to consider a scam economy those which in a panic situation or under an important backlash would crash leaving honest players in the cold, we could, for instance, consider paying a close attention to all the world economies that run huge deficits. A scam situation is where a part takes advantage of the other on fake, made out proposal to achieve that end. Everything that looks as a pyramid is not a scam scheme.

I detailed how the entire Second Life economic system strongly resembles a HYIP. HYIPs do not meet the definition you suggest. HYIPs are not illegal nor illegitimate (as of 6 months ago at least) until post ante. Ex ante, HYIPs are legitimate even if they smell bad, and even if people document the fact that it is almost surely such a scheme. Attempting to prosecute a HYIP as some kind of scam before the scam actually occurs is akin to trying to prosecute a "mind crime", because the game isn't up until it's up.

To say government deficits are also pyramid schemes is, to be blunt, a real neophyte argument. It's on a par with "the dollar isn't real either" kind of arguments. Both involve sovereignty and the powers of the sovereign. Last I checked neither Linden Research, Inc. nor Second Life were sovereign states.

47.

Last I checked, most people in Second Life are there to spend money on having fun, not get more out of some investment, but some people refuse to accept that truth.

I personally considered all the SL "banks" and other financial systems dangerous toys that anyone would have to be a real gambler, or sucker, to put any significant money into. when it all comes tumbling down, I'll shrug. I never fell for it.

As for WoW. I play with a friend- I make most of the leather armour for my friend and myself. Does that make her a skeevy twink because she didn't "earn" it?

48.

Ok. Let my crystallize my thoughts a little on this matter..

Remember those horribly embarrassing accounts in the mid nineties about 'cyberspace', that basically went "Hackers are into VIRTUAL REALITY, Its like LSD! Some hackers take DRUGS. MAYAN CALANDARS MAN!". There was a whole bunch of them, and as a general rule, when we where doing those first exploratory classes in 'cyberculture' , the general gist for students was "Look kids, this stuff is pretty groovy, and is definately fun to talk about around the Uni Tavern, but its not really academia, and whilst we still dont really know what the heck we are doing here over in the arts, I'm pretty sure the thesis wont be "VR=ACID".

Well, for the sake of metaphor, lets take a walk over to the tavern and put the academic notepad away for a bit.

On some level, Second Life is LSD to WOW & Everquests heroin. Its not really addictive, it can be downright disturbing at time, but man theres some pretty colours, and some of the stuff going on is pretty deep.

But Its just a trip. A big ride (Note still at the tavern here, not in the lab) , and its one that you can go home from at the end. You probably want to, spend too much time in loopy land and you might start turning up to work in a cape and goggles (fun fact: I did precisely that in my psychedelic undergrad. Yeah... that was good for the academic career)

But it really wants to be a closed surface, with a little bit of porousness that you can bring aspects of your corporeality to. You might bring a few power structures along, then beat them with a hammer until they are unrecognisable. And its all cool. Anything goes in loopy land.

Thing is, along comes the commerce department, and well, they noticed that the long haired kids are having a great time and maybe theres a few dollars to be had here.

No problems, I'll buy a couple of those whistles and one of those crazy flashing streamers to wrap around my head when invoking faeries.

Problem is, the money guys won't go away. And man do they bring the party down. All the long haired guys and dolls are trying their hardest to party on down (left click! right click!) but its getting hard, cos the trips wearing off, and this guy now wants to sell me a superanuation plan?

But man , this trip is karmic as hell. See Dr Feelgood just turned up with some mushrooms, and we are blowing this bum joint.

And theres no one left for the money guy to sell superanuation too. I think he might be having a pretty bummed out trip.

49.

Last I checked, most people in Second Life are there to spend money on having fun, not get more out of some investment, but some people refuse to accept that truth.

I'd love to see your data proving that assertion. Especially since you present it as some obvious "truth" that some of "us people" refuse to accept. I'll have to assume that you include nearly all of the media in your definition of "some people", as well as Linden Research, Inc.'s own marketing and PR folks.

50.

You can call it a " partially truth " or a " lie by omission " , the omission being : " last = 2 years ago " , and " most peoples = me, my granma and my pet ".

Or you can call it " art" , " science ", and even " commerce ".

51.

@randolfe: According to the posted Linden stats, about a million people logged into SL during the last 30 days. In June, 42,597 people had positive $LD flow; and that includes 23,159 with less than +$US10 for the month.

If anything like a majority of the 960,000-ish people out of those million who didn't make any money are there for the cash... well, that's just sad.

Total resident transactions in June were around $LD 14,397,286. That's an average of around $14 LD per visitor in that month, or about $US 5-cents.

I've said it before, and this info supports it: there's simply not *enough* financial "stuff" going on in SL to support either the idea that it's (in general) a great place to make real money, OR the idea that it's a scam, scheme, etc. I agree with Ace and dmx (whose great analogy now colors my blown-mind): most people are in SL for the shiny lights and bazang rather than the money.

52.

@randolfe: Both to be blunt and neophyte are not strange for me, in an almost everyday basis, so I don’t mind them as negative tag. However, I guess that paternalistic and / or naive could be a bit disturbing for you, as I can’t see other reason that could mislead you into infer that I said that government deficits are pyramid scheme.

Actually what I wrote was “if we were to consider a scam economy those which in a panic situation or under an important backlash would crash leaving honest players in the cold, we could, for instance, consider paying a close attention to all the world economies that run huge deficits”.

Basically, I was talking about “LIQUITY” and that, I think, it could not be used as a measure to determine if there is a scam scheme on place. Actually, using “world economies” is like using a specific country, and that could arouse uncontrolled feelings, that is my fault. Well, if a world economy does not make for you or makes you uncomfortable, lets us talk about banks and their required reserves level. I hope there is not a banker around.

Well, I would not argue about sovereignty as it is far off topic but you have touched nerve here. As I read, maybe wrongly, I felt that sovereignty make you comfortable, however, as much as it makes me very uncomfortable. From wikipedia: “sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other”. I feel that what it is not good for a man, it can not be good for a country. Anyway, far off topic, sorry.

Finally, regarding the , although I see your point about why having a currency, as well as I do for the others that refute your position, I think that you mixing things up to add to your position:
.- Yes, They are individuals that, within SL, could be mounting a scam scheme which is related the this post’s topic. However, if you are talking about SL, I have not found the Yield. Maybe, because I am to be blunt or neophyte, if there is a HYIP, it should be a Y around.
.- Yes, we boast SL is the best. Oh, well, you just wanted to hear about business, so you got the business’ fanfare. The boast is across applications, because we think we can.
.- Yes, SL is cult. We are passionate about it, we try to indoctrinate neophyte to our cult, we boast our cult as the best, and we want to have everything what we need in-world. Did I say brain washer?
.- Yes, SL has an "economy" … well, nobody said SL were to be heaven.

53.

Vindi

I've addressed all those points various times in my blog some months ago when this originally came up. I still await a reasonable refutation of my HYIP analogies. The best so far are that Linden Research, Inc. did not specifically advertise Second Life as a place to categorically earn financial returns. This is technically true, even though I documented the number of times Linden referred to the ability to "earn money" in their promotional material, the prominently featured content to that end on their own web site, and their sponsored promotional videos (with Reuters, for example) which emphasized earning real money over 20 times in less than 2 minutes.

I'm sorta slow, so pardon me confusing all that as advertisements for earning *Y*ield. I've yet to get my brain around how LL printing lots of virtual tokens and selling them for millions in zero marginal cost revenues (I'd call this seniorage) fits into your position's equation. And didn't Rosedale say (paraphrased) "play Second Life, pay your rent?".

Though I apologize for coming off too bristly. I should just learn my lesson and quit yapping about Second Life. After all, Mr. Castronova enlightened me that it was really just "Virtual Mayberry", threats of violence received by dissenters excepted.

54.

Andy Havens says:

" @randolfe: According to the posted Linden stats, about a million people logged into SL...."


@ Andy : the word is ACCORDING to what LL posted.
LL posted ownership , LL posted 20,000 concurrent users on the same sim , and much more .

For you, is there any difference between LL, Rosedale , Prokofy , a statement and an accurate information ?

"...I've said it before, and this info supports it: there's simply not *enough* financial "stuff" going on in SL to support either the idea that it's (in general) a great place to make real money, OR the idea that it's a scam, scheme, etc. "

There was simply enough money to make Rosedale a rich man , was simply enough money to pay for the hype PR . And the scam - nota bene , the scam, not the ideea - is when you make peoples to freely give you money ,believing your " statements " , while you have no intention or ability to ever give them what you promised ; sure, according to EULA, you never promised anything, but EULA is a small almost invisible and often ignored screen , while LL's CEO and its complices trumpetted loud and high very different.

All you could say is : "....you were free to read the EULA before any investment ".

The same says the scammer : you were free to have a higher IQ ,a translator , a lawyer and a policeman by your side when i've scammed you .

Let me tell you what supports the label " online scheme " : the very reality of facts , wich facts are : LL did their best to missinform, to mislead their customers , and LL intentionally designed their game and EULA to be positioned in the grey area of the laws . Go back to Bragg's case and tell me why it's not resolved yet ? I tell you why : because while LL's CEO was yelling " ownership " and " get rich " to it's paying customers, on the other side he was telling to the Court : " ....you know, Virtual means : it's not true, it's not real , and Bragg should have being reading EULA ". And guess what : even that mighty EULA is a mess and the judges are scratching their heads trying to figure what legally is LL's EULA.

LL are not even clearly and legally defining what they're selling : SL is today a game, tomorrow a platform, next Friday it's a service but actually it's ....a Virtual World ! Geez ! LL are selling a Virtual World for Real Money ! It's not a scam , right ?! According to the infos provided by....LL itself , there is nothing to support such an idea !

55.

Randolfe, the maths is very simple.

One person buys an island region for $1675 and $295 per month. One person has a stake in SL, investing in the hope of making something out of it.

Sixteen more people turn up and pay them a bunch of money so they can plonk a cute house and some stuff on a patch of that island region. They pay money for nothing more than the fun of having a piece of virtual land to goof around or socialize on.

All you have to do is look at how much land does NOT have a store or business on it, to see the proof that people are not all in SL to make money. All that land costs somebody in tier charges. There are hundreds of "residential" islands where commercial builds are explicitly prohibited. What the hell do you think people renting a space on those places are paying for? Buying into a lottery or an investment scheme?

You want data? Look at your own. See all those "failed investors" you think are there? They're consumers. You see sixteen losers and one winner and call it a scheme. I see sixteen customers paying for a service and one person making money providing it.

So yes, perhaps you should quit yapping about Second Life. Meanwhile I'll go making some demands from Blizzard about where my $15 per month investment is going.

56.

"They're consumers. You see sixteen losers and one winner and call it a scheme. I see sixteen customers paying for a service and one person making money providing it."

Does that person pays any tax to the IRS ?
Is LL a Financial Public Services Provider , or a Bank or what ?

57.

@Ace

Thanks for convincing me to *not* quit yapping about Second Life.

...yes, I'm incapable of doing "simple math". And apparently I missed all the Blizzard marketing, PR and interviews oriented towards promoting WoW as a place to make money. I'll look for those.

Be careful, your eyes are looking a bit glazed.

58.

"You see sixteen losers and one winner and call it a scheme"

Is the term " illegal and rigged Casino " more accurate ? LL being the House ? It seems that was the FEDs definition .

59.

"You have no way of knowing, and there's no way that it can affect your game - Mike Sellers"

How is that a defense of RMT? That is like saying your Doctor who bought his degree off the internet cannot affect your health.

Players expect a person of XX experience to have XX skills and if they do not it does affect your enjoyment of the game when you die over and over again or fail at a mission etc..

60.

@ Mike : please could you explain me how comes :

- you consider the players of a same game to be a community and even some sort of society;

- same time , you consider that there's no significant / damaging influence when in your community /tribe/ village / district etc. , suddenly appears a Baron wearing the Barons' clothes, powers, weapons and entitlements but without having any knowledge of language ,local dialect,laws, cutumes....

You're saying that because sometimes your City's Mayor is drunk, bored or acts like an idiot or delegate a secretary to do his job .....you're saying that for you is ok if tomorrow he sells his job to a - let say - Chinese farmer.

Mike, make you mind please : are your players a community or a bunch of total uninterested strangers keyboarding the alts ?

61.

@Amarilla: at least you are showing that you learn on those good, sharp and fun comments and remarks that have been wrote here. However, if we try to picture what kind of VW we would make out of ours own comments, Amarilla, How would your world looks like?

Randolfe
First, thanks for openly reading what I tried to write, rather than what I wrote; for instance, when I wrote about having a currency, as it is written, it seems as the other way around on what you propose!? Doubles negatives it is also a big language difference with my own.

I did read both of your post around the time when you wrote them, and I had read once more the second one on these past days, including comments ... neither an easy nor short time task, but I do appreciate the "food for the thought".

As I read your last comment this afternoon at the office, I was thinking about it while still I was at my desk and on my way back home, and I thought that there were a lot emotions going on that I was not aware, but I still thought that arguments could do the job.

However, now, I had read your last post in your blog, from start to end. And I doubt about myself being able to get across. But I do doubt a lot less about you being able to hear it. So, I go for it.

Firstly, we agree that on no place it is a direct relations regarding LL and the Y for an HYIP scheme. Yes, there are has been a lot of SL business' fanfare, and, you know, any single product or service that is or pretend to be business related from consulting to paper boxes, it is always "sold", you guess what, on the basis "you will get richer".

Well, the phrase could be more elaborated, depending on the audience: bottom line, your strategic focus, an MBA is forever, or whatever; but in essence this is what we are taught to say and find. No other measures, just the easy one. If I were to point a finger here, I will go with the tag of marketing myopia. Still, it is difficult to make a pitch when what you have on your hands is a "life for anyone". "More" seems that is better always but what it is always is "more complex".

Well, I don't think you are a sorta slow, but I do accept it as a writing resource, well brought indeed. However, regarding printing virtual tokens, it is a bit contradictory the overall position.

I find it a bit contradictory because in one way it is argued that there is not an economy but we kept hooked on the tags as if there were one.

For instance, if $L is not a currency, because it does not meet all the requirements, How can we speak later about seigniorage if there is not a government neither.?

Also, as we kept the $L as currency, currency printing has to have a cost. Well, zero marginal cost -or almost zero- is attribute of the digital era but I guess that we are not talking about this cost. In RL, the most important cost of printing currency are not those related to paper, inks, distribution, and so on. The important Cost is because it is spend on the same marketplace on where it is printed and due to the fact that there is not money on hand nor is expected. I guess that LL pay their servers, payroll, energy in $USD and does not print $L as they need in RL but as they are pulled from the market and distributed on stipends. Still it is needed to watch out as it should not became an "air miles" issue.

I was a bit surprised about what was the misunderstanding, but I think there is no ill filling on both ways, we tried to bring "food for the thought" consistently. In the other hand, I myself would not skip in this life to be blunt, paternalistic, naive or neophyte.

62.

"However, if we try to picture what kind of VW we would make out of ours own comments, Amarilla, How would your world looks like?"

I'm not very clear about what the real world " looks like" yet, so i'll just skip on making a Virtual one , for a while.

And besides , i'm too busy discussing and sharing opinions and ideeas , more about the existing environments called VWs and less about personal projects. Pay more attention to ideeas and less to individuals.

63.

I suppose the Financial Market Meltdown is complete now with Ginko Financial more or less completely collapsing?

64.

Robert - it gets worse. Seriously. And more is coming.

65.

Nah, it's just funny :-) More " drama " = more fun; afterall, it's a MMORPG. Peoples are playing " roles " in a Virtual World. Some are playing " cops ", some " thieves " and some the " public ".

Wanna know when it gonna get really bad and serious ? When the players realises Ginko is LL.

66.

hermeneutics phantasmically contemplativeness jovicentrically unflatteringly redepreciate unsignificant leviticality
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/9.html >9
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/15.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/8.html >8
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/3.html
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/18.html >18
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/12.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/5.html >5
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/4.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/7.html >7
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/1.html
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/13.html >13
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/17.html
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/16.html >16
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/6.html
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/15.html >15
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/2.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/5.html >5
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/6.html
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/13.html >13
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/17.html

The comments to this entry are closed.