[MUD-Dev] banning the sale of items

[Geoffrey A. MacDougall]

Matthew Mihaly wrote:

> This might be horribly naive, as I haven't given it much 
> thought, but if
> people want to buy these things, why the hell is Verant making them go
> offline to do it? 

I think the answer to this question has been addressed before - in that
condoning the behaviour is to take responsibility for it.  This means that
players getting ripped off becomes Verant's problem with which to deal.  By
banning the entire process - carte blanche - they can pick and choose when
to become involved, or let the behaviour slide, without any (or at least as
many) legal ramifications.  Same sort-of logic that goes into authoritarian
user agreements.

> If Verant believes that it is impossible to 
> stop, why
> not try to exploit it? We supplement our income quite nicely 
> by selling
> items. We've not sold characters, but there's no reason we couldn't.
> Personally, if I were Verant, I'd mainly be pissed that I'm 
> not getting a
> piece of the action.
> 

I would argue that the nature of goods in the virtual world is, as yet, too
transitory to render dealing in them for RL cash an entrenched part of any
game design.  Goods can be and are lost to server crashes and other bugs.
And, as already demonstrated, GMs and other immortals with the power to
create goods and get rich quick can screw over the fragile balance of an
MMORPG economy.  You are faced with competing interests - RL gain vs. the
sanctity of gameplay.  If the sale of goods to other players for RL cash
becomes the driving force for the majority of the player base, you are faced
with a fundamental shift in the game design paradigm.  The purpose of the
game becomes altered, and therefore, so too does the value (as a function of
utility) of the goods within that game.

>From what I know of you MUD, Matt, you are operating at a scale where it is
financially feasible for you to investigate and patch any errors that may
have resulted in players losing virtual goods for which they paid RL
currency.  I would hesitate to assume that the same model would be
functionable at a larger scale.

I think that Raph has the best take on the matter - don't condone or rebut,
but simply take it as a compliment that your creation has such tremendous
value to a wide variety of people.

Cheers,

Geoffrey MacDougall
www.intangibleproductions.com



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev