This July 2009 story feels sort of August 2006, doesn't it? Or maybe even sort of October 2003?
Like night follows day, it follows that if "virtual" currency X has a "real" exchange value of $Y, and the virtual world mechanics permit or even encourage player A to rob or swindle player B of a substantial amount of X, then we're going to have this sort of virtual crime.
Q: When will it be old news? A: Hopefully, sometime in 2012, after my book comes out.
Also, Reuters (or CBC?) doesn't seem to understand the recent Chinese regulations very well.
Update: Apparently, a blog on the New York Times thinks this is new stuff.
"When will it be old news?"
From a gamer's point of view one hopes it will never be old news.
Eve is basically a gangster game in space, a gangster game where the gangsters can't commit crimes would be pointless.
Posted by: Stabs | Jul 05, 2009 at 07:15
So you guys aren't going to have any comment on the parallels that popped up this time between real world and virtual banking models. EBANK has shown it uses fractional-reserve banking, risk mitigation strategies, hedges, collateral on loans, and even service level agreements (which it measures). It's gotten to the point where it has actual defined policy and controls around it's finances and IT (using a crude change management system).
From a business point of view, it's pretty interesting to see this level of sophistication in a game where money can't be legally or easily "cashed out". Even Ricdic only stole 9% of deposits due to the diversification of Bank assets across multiple people.
Of course, you could always just say EVE is violent, etc but then you'd be ignoring the persistent maturation of financial markets in a game which suffers scams on a near monthly basis. You have to question; how can financial order emerge (and mature) from a system boiling with chaos and violence?
EVE is an interesting game.
Posted by: Dave | Jul 16, 2009 at 14:44