Some of the more interesting statistics would be that:
-One man named "Smooth Criminal" earned as much as $1.5 Million from SWG with his 'cartel'.
-Farming Sweatshops are setup in different countries such as China and Romania where workers are paid what would be 56 cents for one hour. This results in some workers making around $121 a month to $180. Shifts usually run around 12 hours.
-Macros made for these games can run as much as $3,000 when made.
-The largest company in this market right now is IGE. IGE provides a standard for prices.
-Two choice quotes from the article.
+ One man who owns a company here in America said, "I was able to quit my full-time, six-figure-income job."
+ Another man describing the pay of workers who farm for Resellers and Wholesalers said, "They get paid dirt. But dirt is good where they live."
-"Last year alone, this newfound industry grossed roughly $500 million..."
BacardiMunch fucked around with this message on 06-16-2005 at 01:33 PM.
Being detached from playing MMORPGs as of late I'm not quite sure what to think of all these facts. What I can say is DAMN that is a LOT of money being made.
As players, how do you all feel about this market's existance?
quote:This is pretty old news. People have been making tons of cash from MMORPGs since late Kunark/Velious-era EQ.
Verily, BacardiMunch doth proclaim:
As players, how do you all feel about this market's existance?
Blackened fucked around with this message on 06-16-2005 at 01:45 PM.
Mostly because it always feels like the gold does not come in nearly fast enough 
However, I'm also greedy, so my money remains my money!
quote:
Khyron stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
I've been tempted to buy gold this way.Mostly because it always feels like the gold does not come in nearly fast enough
However, I'm also greedy, so my money remains my money!
Yeah, I thought about it a couple of times, then I looked at the prices. It's ridiculous that anyone could justify paying that much...
$13 for 100 gold? That can go along way. Especially if you need some starting money to start Auction House whoring. You can make that back in about a week of casual play.
quote:
Blackened had this to say about Pirotess:
This is pretty old news. People have been making tons of cash from MMORPGs since late Kunark/Velious-era EQ.
It all really started in Ultima Online.
Guy sold a Castle for $2500 or so. Then someone told a Tower for $1700. After that, virtual property took off big time.
In game rares, 7x GM characters, etc. All made big money.
quote:
Alidane stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Its existence as a black market against a developer's wishes is disgusting.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Maradon! fucked around with this message on 06-16-2005 at 10:40 PM.
quote:
Alidane stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Its existence as a black market against a developer's wishes is disgusting.
And why is that? Players routinely do things against a developer's wishes all the time, to the benefit of both at times. Furthermore, some developers not only don't have a problem with this, but promote it. Its not a black market, such as you describe it.
While I don't personally sell/buy MMOG items, I don't see a huge problem with it. Some folks have money on their hands, while others have time. Someone with money is simply trading someone with time.
Is it unfortunate that there are Asian sweatshops? Yup. Is it necessarily a bad thing? Nope. Folks are being given a job, when they might not be able to get one elsewhere for any better pay. Does the pay suck? Yup. Does the pay reflect the work? Many of these places only have people there to attend to the macros, or respond to GMs who are hunting down bots. Its not exactly brain surgery.
Hell, folks should be happy that these services are doing it nowadays. It used to be worse. How many old UO players can remember the pain of trying to get a house vs those who used cheats to place houses and sell them? How many remember the scandal concerning an UO GM who created items and sold them on EBay? If anything, its more civilized now. There's less underhanded cheating going on to actually get items to be sold.
So what's wrong? You've really only got two arguements against this; people aren't earning these items and these gold farmers are ruining the economy. The first arguement is BS; not everyone can put in a large amount of time into the timesinks MMOGs thrive on. Good for these people for finding a way around it. Its likely that being put in the shoes of those who have cash, but little time would change the feelings of many who make this earnings arguement. The second arguement does have merit though. Gold farmers can ruin the economy of servers, and have done so in the past(see FFXI). A determined group of the same size could easily do this if they felt like it though, and it has in the past (see AC). This is an extreme case though; only FFXI has been affected to an extreme amount.
*shrugs* This is a debate that has been raging on since... well... the early days of MMOGs. These services won't be stopped anytime soon, at least until more developers just offer the services themselves up front. If you don't like it, well gg cry more n00b. 
This bring on yet another question.
Would gamers such as yourselves rather see a profit gain within companies such as SOE or would you rather it stay within the bounds of these individuals who manage the independant companies such as IGE?
In a realistic view I'd like to think that providing jobs for those in other nations with decent conditions and seemingly no hassle is a good thing. When I typed the word sweatshop I didn't mean for it to come off as what you would expect. These people are palced in air-conditioned hangers/buildings and sometimes this money brings in the extra their families need. I remember reading the Romanian boy's family greatly benefitted. He raised goats before he farmed.
From a gaming view I'd rather play a game where there is little to no outside business on an in game economy. I feel it ruins the sense of any real challenge in the game. If I activated an account for SWG tomorrow, I would be VERY tempted to purchase a load of credits just to avoid the early game hassles and boost my way into the more complex quests.
I'm yes and no on this.
quote:
Verily, Maradon! doth proclaim:
It's pretty idiotic on the part of people who actually pay for the service. What kind of idiot pays someone else to play a game for them?
There's a difference between playing a game, (As in: Raids, PVP, quests, etc) and fulfilling time sinks.
quote:
Talonus stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
And why is that? Players routinely do things against a developer's wishes all the time, to the benefit of both at times. Furthermore, some developers not only don't have a problem with this, but promote it. Its not a black market, such as you describe it.
I don't see how it's not a black market when the developers tell you not to do it, and you do it anyway. This isn't even a gray area; this stuff is laid out in writing.
My biggest problem with it is that it ruins the game. While players and developers often have differing visions on how a game should be played, I do think that a developer should have the clout to be able to specifically prohibit behaviors like this that are (arguably) damaging to their world. That's the point we're probably going to argue about, but whatever.
Here's an analogy I blatantly stole from the paper I link in the next paragraph: say we're playing Monopoly. I have Boardwalk, you have Park Place. I really really want Park Place, but I don't have enough in-game money for it; instead, I pay you $20 of real money, and you give me the in-game item. That's just not playing fairly, because you're giving me something for nothing in the sense of the game. You can pander it off by saying that we're not fighting each other in PvE and blah blah blah, but it holds up (especially well in PvP, I think).
The other point, and a particularly poignant one, is that treating these items as virtual property brings about a number of pitfalls that aren't ready to be handled by the industry. I'm mainly bringing this up after reading this paper from one Richard Bartle.
And while yes, the industry seems to be moving more towards acceptance of this market, there are some who still don't like it. I don't think we'll ever see a way to stomp on this issue head on by killing auctions or anything, but I do think designers need to start thinking about how to stop this at the source, and design games to be "non-eBayable". I just think it's a shame that designers even have to think about it. I don't think it's right, and I'm not just going to throw up my hands and say "Oh well, everyone's doing it, it must be OK."
quote:
BacardiMunch was naked while typing this:
Would gamers such as yourselves rather see a profit gain within companies such as SOE or would you rather it stay within the bounds of these individuals who manage the independant companies such as IGE?
I fit must happen, I'd rather see SOE or Blizzard or whoever get the money. More money for them=more stuff in game for us.
quote:
BacardiMunch stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Would gamers such as yourselves rather see a profit gain within companies such as SOE or would you rather it stay within the bounds of these individuals who manage the independant companies such as IGE?
It's up to the developer. If they want to allow only first-party trades (such as the Station Exchange does), that's cool; if they want to allow third-party trades, that's cool too. If they want to disallow any real-world trades, that should be an option available to them. Unfortunately, it's not.
quote:
From the book of Alaan, chapter 3, verse 16:
I fit must happen, I'd rather see SOE or Blizzard or whoever get the money. More money for them=more stuff in game for us.
I tend to be less trusting of companies out to make money.
Want to skip the 15-hour camp for that kick-ass sword? It'll be $25. Oh, you'd rather not? Fine, the upcoming slightly-better kick-ass sword's camp time will be bumped up to 25 hours, but'll cost $30...etc
When developers know other companies will make money on their games they'll try to think of ways to limit farming/ebaying without stripping the game of any kind of economy.
Luckily for me, gil is virtually pointless as the only way for me to advance in equipment is to obtain even more player exclusive(untradable) equipment that'll just waste away in storage.
quote:
Alidane stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Have you ever read the EULA/Terms of Use/whatever else you have to click "accept" on to play most of these games? A large majority of the specifically prohibit ebaying, with the notable exceptions of EQII. I don't have a problem with the Station Exchange, but I do have a problem with people deliberately entering a contract without the intent to follow it.
Can you say that you've honestly never violated a EULA? You've never made a character that didn't follow the naming conventions? You've never cussed? You've never exploited or got somewhere where you might not supposed to go? Finding those few angelic players who've never violated the EULA period is like finding a needle in a haystack.
quote:
My biggest problem with it is that it ruins the game. While players and developers often have differing visions on how a game should be played, I do think that a developer should have the clout to be able to specifically prohibit behaviors like this that are (arguably) damaging to their world. That's the point we're probably going to argue about, but whatever.
Players frequently do things developers don't intend or want them to do. This is not always a bad thing either. Furthermore, the developer often doesn't voice their opinions on this, or those opinions change. Hell, item selling was fine for a good deal of time in UO and EQ. Then it was BAD BAD BAD. Now EA sells items in UO that they make, and SOE will be hosting its own ebay-ish system.
quote:
Here's an analogy I blatantly stole from the paper I link in the next paragraph: say we're playing Monopoly. I have Boardwalk, you have Park Place. I really really want Park Place, but I don't have enough in-game money for it; instead, I pay you $20 of real money, and you give me the in-game item. That's just not playing fairly, because you're giving me something for nothing in the sense of the game. You can pander it off by saying that we're not fighting each other in PvE and blah blah blah, but it holds up (especially well in PvP, I think).
Except your analogy is flawed. Monopoly is essentially a PvP system with all "items" being unique. You already admit that it doesn't matter in PvE, except for epeen matters. Your arguement is flawed for a PvP system as well. Just because player A owns Park Place doesn't mean player B can't own it as well, except in very rare cases. If there were a limited number of unique weapons in MMOs, you'd have a point. There aren't, so you don't.
quote:
The other point, and a particularly poignant one, is that treating these items as virtual property brings about a number of pitfalls that aren't ready to be handled by the industry. I'm mainly bringing this up after reading this paper from one Richard Bartle.
Indeed, it is a pitfall. You can't lay the blame at the feet of item sellers though for this. Its an issue that the software industry as a whole had to and is still dealing with. Why exempt the MMO industry?
quote:
And while yes, the industry seems to be moving more towards acceptance of this market, there are some who still don't like it. I don't think we'll ever see a way to stomp on this issue head on by killing auctions or anything, but I do think designers need to start thinking about how to stop this at the source, and design games to be "non-eBayable". I just think it's a shame that designers even have to think about it. I don't think it's right, and I'm not just going to throw up my hands and say "Oh well, everyone's doing it, it must be OK."
It is a shame that developers have to think about it. Embrace the idea and control it; don't fight it. Hell, Project Entropia is the only MMO that has had its developers really embrace the idea, and its gone quite splendid for them. If other companies were to do the same, which seems to be an emerging trend, they can take advantage of it too. Those who don't will keep fighting a battle they can't win until they make every item no-drop, don't have any type of currency, and make it impossible to log into an account from a different IP.
Remember one thing in all this. Developers aren't fighting it because it infringes upon their property. Increased ebay sales mean less boxes sold, which means less cash. Furthermore, it means players have to deal with less timesinks, which pontentially decreases the time in which a player will keep a subscription. (The quicker you max out your character, the quicker you will cancel.) Hell, I shouldn't even say developers. Gaming company management/lawyers fight this because they get less money, not because they care about the game.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
I'd just like to point out that, "Everybody does it, so it must be okay," is a logical fallacy. A particularly annoying and sophomoric one, at that.
I'm not saying that. You can't just point to the EULA and say "they break it, so they are BAD BAD BAD!". Most of the game's population breaks the EULA; you can't call one type of breaking the EULA "BAD BAD BAD", and simply say its ok for the other group to break the EULA. There isn't a distinction as to what is worse, simply that both are bad. Why should folks go after gold sellers and not those who cuss in a game?
Hell, its quite argueable that these companies aren't even breaking the EULA. Those who manage these sales often do not play the games themselves, so it does not apply to them. They are simply coordinating the sale between two people. That's why SOE (I think it was SOE) had no legal ground to stand on when going after IGE way back. IGE isn't breaking the EULA, so what they are doing is perfectly fine. Talonus fucked around with this message on 06-17-2005 at 07:43 PM.
5 Years of playing.. every old school item including pre nerf guise, pre nerf mana stone, etc.
Well worth it.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Talonus gently hums:
I'm not saying that. You can't just point to the EULA and say "they break it, so they are BAD BAD BAD!". Most of the game's population breaks the EULA; you can't call one type of breaking the EULA "BAD BAD BAD", and simply say its ok for the other group to break the EULA. There isn't a distinction as to what is worse, simply that both are bad. Why should folks go after gold sellers and not those who cuss in a game?Hell, its quite argueable that these companies aren't even breaking the EULA. Those who manage these sales often do not play the games themselves, so it does not apply to them. They are simply coordinating the sale between two people. That's why SOE (I think it was SOE) had no legal ground to stand on when going after IGE way back. IGE isn't breaking the EULA, so what they are doing is perfectly fine.
You just did it again, with exactly the same fallacy.
First, no one has said that some EULA violations are better than others. That's just a strawman you've created in order to bolster your fallacious argument.
Second, it's not relevant what other people do with other rules. When a cop pulls you over for running a stop sign, you can't claim you shouldn't be prosecuted just because the guy in front of you did the same thing. Regardless of anyone else's action or inaction, what you did was still wrong.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage Model 2000 was programmed to say:
You just did it again, with exactly the same fallacy.First, no one has said that some EULA violations are better than others. That's just a strawman you've created in order to bolster your fallacious argument.
Second, it's not relevant what other people do with other rules. When a cop pulls you over for running a stop sign, you can't claim you shouldn't be prosecuted just because the guy in front of you did the same thing. Regardless of anyone else's action or inaction, what you did was still wrong.
Oh no! I've fallen prey to a fallacy! Oh no! Am I caring? Not yet. Now? Nope! Now? Not yet! You can't simply dismiss everything I've said by pointing to the fallacies and saying "bad boy!".
I'm not saying anyone has said that some EULA violations are worse than others. I'm pointing out the fact folks have major problems with some EULA violations, but no problems with other ones. Alidane called this black market disgusting and cited the EULA as one of his reasons as to why it is disgusting. I am wondering why this case of EULA violation is any worse than any other violation. Its all the same thing. Why is one "disgusting" and worthy of reproach, but not the others?
Your cop analogy is dead wrong as well. You're pointing at the guy who did something wrong and saying he did something wrong. I agree, duh. This is a different case entirely. The EULA doesn't apply to the owners of these companies if they don't play the game themselves. They're not doing anything wrong by being a mediator in these sales, because they haven't agreed to the rules the EULA sets down. They're no more at fault than eBay is when someone gets scammed.
Also, it's time to play "explain the analogy".
quote:
Except your analogy is flawed. Monopoly is essentially a PvP system with all "items" being unique. You already admit that it doesn't matter in PvE, except for epeen matters. Your arguement is flawed for a PvP system as well. Just because player A owns Park Place doesn't mean player B can't own it as well, except in very rare cases. If there were a limited number of unique weapons in MMOs, you'd have a point. There aren't, so you don't.
The point wasn't item rarity or other economic issues, the point was that someone stepped outside the bounds of the game. Using an outside influence to effect your standing in a game is generally heralded as unsportsmanlike. The game shifts from who's more savvy at Monopoly to who has more money in their wallet. In TerraNova terms, you broke the magic circle. Congratulations for missing the point.
You completely missed the cop analogy too, but I'll let Bloodsage point that one out. 
[edit]Grammar. Alidane fucked around with this message on 06-17-2005 at 08:49 PM.
quote:
Alidane impressed everyone with:
I have major problems with people who try and justify their EULA violations as "okay". Look at the intent: a lot of these farmers play the game with absolutely no intention of following the EULA. That's why I called it "disgusting". They're not even trying to follow the rules.
And? Again, my "fallacy" comes into play here. Most players have no intention of following the EULA. If they did, we'd never see cussing in a game. How is this any different and more disgusting?
Furthermore, you leave the question to be asked. What about those who manage these operations, but don't play the games. Are those who own these sweatshops not disgusting because they never agreed to the EULA? They're not breaking any rules nor are they violating the EULA.
quote:
Also, it's time to play "explain the analogy".
The point wasn't item rarity or other economic issues, the point was that someone stepped outside the bounds of the game. Using an outside influence to effect your standing in a game is generally heralded as unsportsmanlike. The game shifts from who's more savvy at Monopoly to who has more money in their wallet. In TerraNova terms, you broke the magic circle. Congratulations for missing the point.
MMOs have nothing to do with sportsmanlike conduct. Its not skill that defines how far you progress in a MMO, but how much time you have. You could be the best player in a game, but if you only have an hour a day you'll never get anyone close to someone who can play a game for 10 hours a day. In terms of Monopoly, its allowing someone to have 10 turns and another 1 turn. This is sportsmanlike? If you wanted MMOs to be sportsmanlike, every MMO would follow a policy that only allowed players to play for X minutes a day.
quote:
You completely missed the cop analogy too, but I'll let Bloodsage point that one out.
Perhaps. Maybe I don't see how you're supposed to apply rules to someone who the rules don't apply to at all. *shrugs* Talonus fucked around with this message on 06-17-2005 at 09:27 PM.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Talonus absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Oh no! I've fallen prey to a fallacy! Oh no! Am I caring? Not yet. Now? Nope! Now? Not yet! You can't simply dismiss everything I've said by pointing to the fallacies and saying "bad boy!".I'm not saying anyone has said that some EULA violations are worse than others. I'm pointing out the fact folks have major problems with some EULA violations, but no problems with other ones. Alidane called this black market disgusting and cited the EULA as one of his reasons as to why it is disgusting. I am wondering why this case of EULA violation is any worse than any other violation. Its all the same thing. Why is one "disgusting" and worthy of reproach, but not the others?
Your cop analogy is dead wrong as well. You're pointing at the guy who did something wrong and saying he did something wrong. I agree, duh. This is a different case entirely. The EULA doesn't apply to the owners of these companies if they don't play the game themselves. They're not doing anything wrong by being a mediator in these sales, because they haven't agreed to the rules the EULA sets down. They're no more at fault than eBay is when someone gets scammed.
If you don't care that your reasoning is completely flawed, then what is the point of discussing anything with you, since it can only be by pure luck that your conclusions end up correct?
Don't get mad at the person who points out your mistake; fix it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
For players who don't have the money or time to deal with these problems it can force them to quit the game.
SOE is making a risky move to condone it IMHO but even they are only allowing it on special newly created servers to observe its effect on the economy.
quote:
Bloodsage enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
If you don't care that your reasoning is completely flawed, then what is the point of discussing anything with you, since it can only be by pure luck that your conclusions end up correct?Don't get mad at the person who points out your mistake; fix it.
I said that I wasn't saying "everybody does it, so it must be okay". Since you seem unable to understand this, I will simplify it further. Everybody does it, so why aren't don't you see every EULA breakage as disgusting? Furthermore, why is breaking the EULA in this manner worth noting, while breaking the EULA in other manners not worth noting. Notice the difference in what I said and what you think I said? I hope so. I'm not sure how to simplify it any futher.
Also, aren't you breaking a fallacy yourself? Even if I was wrong on one point, it does not invalidate the entire arguement. Even if I am wrong on one point, it does not mean all my points are wrong. By your assumption that all my points are wrong if one of my points is wrong, aren't you making a fallacious arguement yourself?
Furthermore, may I ask what your opinions are on the matter itself? You haven't done anything but make accusations and use an analogy. In my humble opinion, the accusations are hypocritical and the analogy is flawed. As such, I'd like to see you actually bring something to the conversation, rather than spending the most of your posts attacking me.
(By the way, I'm not sure why you think I'm mad. Assumption good sir! I was simply trying to correct the possible misunderstanding and correct your mistaken analogy.)
quote:
Talonus startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
I said that I wasn't saying "everybody does it, so it must be okay". Since you seem unable to understand this, I will simplify it further. Everybody does it, so why aren't don't you see every EULA breakage as disgusting? Furthermore, why is breaking the EULA in this manner worth noting, while breaking the EULA in other manners not worth noting. Notice the difference in what I said and what you think I said? I hope so. I'm not sure how to simplify it any futher.Also, aren't you breaking a fallacy yourself? Even if I was wrong on one point, it does not invalidate the entire arguement. Even if I am wrong on one point, it does not mean all my points are wrong. By your assumption that all my points are wrong if one of my points is wrong, aren't you making a fallacious arguement yourself?
Furthermore, may I ask what your opinions are on the matter itself? You haven't done anything but make accusations and use an analogy. In my humble opinion, the accusations are hypocritical and the analogy is flawed. As such, I'd like to see you actually bring something to the conversation, rather than spending the most of your posts attacking me.
(By the way, I'm not sure why you think I'm mad. Assumption good sir! I was simply trying to correct the possible misunderstanding and correct your mistaken analogy.)
It's the same fallacy--you're just trying to throw a red herring by asking irrelevant questions. Logically, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about any other types of EULA violations, because they are not at issue.
Further, you'll notice that I didn't pass any judgment on your conclusion. I merely pointed out your fallacy, because, as I said, that's one of the particularly annoying and sophomoric ones. You'll also notice that I didn't say your conclusion was automatically incorrect, merely that its veracity is purely random and not linked in any way to your reasoning, making it pointless to discuss anything with you.
Finally, it's pretty much the traditional whine of those with flawed reasoning to say, "Oh yeah? Well what do you think the answer is?" Why don't you address the flaws in your reasoning before you start casting stones? As I've said, I was only pointing out a glaring and annoying logical fallacy that for some reason you refuse either to acknowledge or to correct.
What's the point in discussing anything with you, if you refuse to be reasonable? It's really not possible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who asserts their conclusions but fails to provide logical explanations.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Robocop:
It's the same fallacy--you're just trying to throw a red herring by asking irrelevant questions. Logically, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about any other types of EULA violations, because they are not at issue.
That is your opinion. It is not a red herring. Both situations are EULA violations. I will repeat myself again concerning the matter. Why is one EULA violation disgusting, but not others? It was a question to Alidane. Am I not allowed to ask questions now? The EULA is part of the discussion, so are some questions concerning the EULA allowed but nother others?
quote:
Further, you'll notice that I didn't pass any judgment on your conclusion. I merely pointed out your fallacy, because, as I said, that's one of the particularly annoying and sophomoric ones. You'll also notice that I didn't say your conclusion was automatically incorrect, merely that its veracity is purely random and not linked in any way to your reasoning, making it pointless to discuss anything with you.
Saying "it can only be by pure luck that your conclusions end up correct" is not a judgement? It sounds like one to me. You're stating that my conclusion can only end up being correct by luck, no other way. It doesn't matter what points I made; only by pure luck can my conclusion be correct. You state it as if it were an absolute. That is a judgement. I don't see how you can see it any other way.
Furthermore, you've provided no proof as to why my conclusion can only be correct by luck. All you've done is harp on one point in the arguement for fallacy reasons. Even if that one point were to be wrong, by passing judgement on the rest of the conclusion you've fallen prey to a fallacy yourself. If we want to be technical though, your entire conclusion can only be correct through pure luck as your analogy was wrong. Please, pick your poison. Admit that you fell prey to a fallacy yourself, and thus your entire conclusion must only be correct through pure luck, or you wrre wrong.
quote:
Finally, it's pretty much the traditional whine of those with flawed reasoning to say, "Oh yeah? Well what do you think the answer is?" Why don't you address the flaws in your reasoning before you start casting stones? As I've said, I was only pointing out a glaring and annoying logical fallacy that for some reason you refuse either to acknowledge or to correct.
Oh bullshit sir. Traditional whine? I wasn't whining. I'm simply asking you to actually contribute, rather than come into the discussion and stir up trouble without making any points of your own.
quote:
What's the point in discussing anything with you, if you refuse to be reasonable? It's really not possible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who asserts their conclusions but fails to provide logical explanations.
Can not the same be said of you? I've provided evidence for my conclusions. Selling accounts/gold is not as disgusting as Alidane initially pointed out; iit is a trend that is becoming embraced by the industry itself. Evidence supports that. )Three links there. I thought it may be a good idea to point that out, just incase you didn't notice.) The discussion was quite civil and reasonable before you posted.
Please, go ahead and disassemble all the points I've made in my posts and show how I was wrong. Extend it to all my points in order to prove my conclusion wrong, or rather only right by luck. Wouldn't a comprehensive evaluation of my points, rather than concentrating on a single point, prove your point? As I am so dense and stupid, I really need you to prove exactly why I am wrong for every point, or at least more than a single one.
Before that, I should ask what the point of dicussing anything with you, if you refuse to be reasonable yourself? It's really not possible to have an intelligent discussionw ith someone who asserts their conclusions but fails to provide logical, or any, explanation. Talonus fucked around with this message on 06-17-2005 at 11:33 PM.
Yes, you can ask about other EULA violations. No, the answers to those questions are not logically relevant to the topic at hand. I'm not asking you what you intend by asking the questions, I'm telling you that, regardless of what you're trying to prove, it's not logically relevant and represent fallacious reasoning.
Further, it should be obvious to the most casual observer that if your reasoning is flawed it can only be pure accident if the conclusion ends up correct since, by definition, it was derived incorrectly. That's why fallacies are fallacies: they don't reliably lead to correct conclusions. Yes, it's theoretically possible to reason incorrectly and reach correct conclusions. No, it's not likely. No, it's not repeatable.
On the other hand, thanks for the practical demonstration of why it's pointless to discuss anything with someone who refuses to follow basic rules of logic.
I judged your conclusion? Hardly. I judged your reasoning, and told you your conclusion is irrelevant until you fix it, because only luck can leap from flawed logic to correct conclusion. What is the point of saying anything at all about your conclusion until you decide to abide by logic? All you've done is assert your conclusion, and wave your hands around while mumbling fallacies, rendering that conclusion meaningless because there's no way to discuss it rationally.
Why don't you spend a few minutes actually researching logic and fallacies before you decide that I don't know what I'm talking about?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
While possessed by the spirit of Somthor, Alidane wrote:
Its existence as a black market against a developer's wishes is disgusting.
oh no not the developers
Jensus fucked around with this message on 06-18-2005 at 03:07 AM.
quote:
Talonus spewed forth this undeniable truth:
I'm not saying that. You can't just point to the EULA and say "they break it, so they are BAD BAD BAD!". Most of the game's population breaks the EULA; you can't call one type of breaking the EULA "BAD BAD BAD", and simply say its ok for the other group to break the EULA. There isn't a distinction as to what is worse, simply that both are bad. Why should folks go after gold sellers and not those who cuss in a game?
I'd like to think that the EULA is ment to protect the quality of the game to an extent. If it comes down to which instance of breaking the EULA does more damage to the quality of the game then I can understand why a company possibly dealing in duped currency would be considered a larger issue than a player using excessive cursing.
Hell, its quite argueable that these companies aren't even breaking the EULA. Those who manage these sales often do not play the games themselves, so it does not apply to them. They are simply coordinating the sale between two people. That's why SOE (I think it was SOE) had no legal ground to stand on when going after IGE way back. IGE isn't breaking the EULA, so what they are doing is perfectly fine.[/QUOTE]
Perfectly LEGAL, that is.
You have made it clear that whether or not it is bad may not be the issue considering SOE has it's own Exchange servers. I'm basing this idea as to why it may concern the developers more due to how it may be making money off of an in game glitch. Then we run into the arguement that a player was just playing the game and it was the devs at fault for not finding the problem sooner. Quite honestly this all comes down to a matter of morals and how you play games.
EULA aside it's been battled in courts and found to be legal when dealing with currency.(ASSUMING what you've said above is true. 
)
I'm really tired so if there are any major flaws or grammar mistakes or increadible shifts in train of thought in the post then please have pity and just point me out if you so wish.
I personally don't agree with the buying and selling of items/leveling/whatever because it sort of steps outside the realm of the game and brings in a real world factor that I feel should be left at the login screen. Said it before, I hate using analogies but I may not have had time to work out all week, but nobody should let me just buy a few three point shots at a basketball game.
As for fallacies and all that, I would probably care if I was debating for the sake of debate, but I'm just voicing an opinion. Father McKenzie fucked around with this message on 06-18-2005 at 04:00 AM.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about John Romero:
Yes, you can ask about other EULA violations. No, the answers to those questions are not logically relevant to the topic at hand. I'm not asking you what you intend by asking the questions, I'm telling you that, regardless of what you're trying to prove, it's not logically relevant and represent fallacious reasoning.
Saying that it is not relevant is your opinion. I think its perfectly relevant. If the majority of players are "entering into a contract without the intent to follow it", as Alidane put it, why is it disgusting to break the EULA in this manner? They're already breaking the EULA; why should they care about how they break the EULA in other ways? You've done it once, why care about other times? You've already done something that should get you banned, so should you be worried about doing anything else should get you banned? Why is it suddenly disgusting to violate the EULA in one sense and not the other?
quote:
Further, it should be obvious to the most casual observer that if your reasoning is flawed it can only be pure accident if the conclusion ends up correct since, by definition, it was derived incorrectly. That's why fallacies are fallacies: they don't reliably lead to correct conclusions. Yes, it's theoretically possible to reason incorrectly and reach correct conclusions. No, it's not likely. No, it's not repeatable.
You've yet to point out how my reasoning as a whole is flawed. You've continued to harp on a single point over and over. That point is not necessary to come to my conclusion, something which I've said over and over. Even if that one point is wrong, you cannot generalize and consider the entire arguement wrong. That is a fallacy itself.
quote:
On the other hand, thanks for the practical demonstration of why it's pointless to discuss anything with someone who refuses to follow basic rules of logic.
I should thank you as well, as you're really doing the same thing eh?
quote:
I judged your conclusion? Hardly. I judged your reasoning, and told you your conclusion is irrelevant until you fix it, because only luck can leap from flawed logic to correct conclusion. What is the point of saying anything at all about your conclusion until you decide to abide by logic? All you've done is assert your conclusion, and wave your hands around while mumbling fallacies, rendering that conclusion meaningless because there's no way to discuss it rationally.
Yes, you did indeed judge my conclusion. I will repeat you again. "it can only be by pure luck that your conclusions end up correct?" You have made an assertion about my conclusion based on your opinion. By using the word only, you imply that there is a single way for my conclusion to be correct. Thus, you have made an assertion that is absolute in your mind about the situation. This is a judgement. I'd like to know what you call it if its not.
Furthermore, I've asked you several times to address the entire conclusion and not the single point. You cannot render the entire arguement as being meaningless, even if one point were to be wrong. Once again, that is ones of the fallacies that you are clinging to so greatly. I've put up hard evidence as to why Alidane's generalization about this being "disgusting" is wrong. You have put up no evidence; you have only attacked me. Until you can put up evidence, I see you as having added nothing at all the conversation besides trolling the post.
quote:
Why don't you spend a few minutes actually researching logic and fallacies before you decide that I don't know what I'm talking about?
I think you might need to take a refresher course yourself. It also might be a good idea to read everything that's been saying on the topic, rather than making judgements of my conclusion as a whole based on a single point.
Look up the logical fallacies pages that have been linked so many times in the past. It doesn't really matter if you think it's a valid point to discuss other EULA violations, because, logically, it has no bearing on a discussion of this particular EULA violation. Your entire point is along the lines of, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," which is a version of the ad hominem fallacy.
As far as your conclusion, why don't you point to any place I've said it was either correct or incorrect? There isn't one, because I haven't judged your conclusion. There's really no point in discussing it, since your logic is flawed and you refuse to conform to the basic tenets of reasoning. With flawed logic, one cannot reliably reach correct conclusions, so it's perfectly accurate to describe flawed logic as leading to correct conclusions only through chance. That doesn't judge the conclusion itself; it only notes that, correct or incorrect, the conclusion does not follow from logic.
Finally, your repetitive refrain of, "It's only your opinion," is both incorrect and silly. If you knew the first thing about logic, you'd see that my opinion of that type of reasoning is backed up by roughly 5,000 years of academic tradition on the topic. Further, that assessment dismisses your own argument. . .and makes all conversation entirely pointless. Opinions are based on logic and can be weighed and compared to one another. If they are not and cannot be, then they are beliefs and there's no point in talking because belief doesn't require proof.
Honestly, for all the effort you've spent creating your brilliantly diverse versions of, "Nuh-uh!" you could've simply corrected your fallacy and moved on. It's no sin to be wrong; pig-headedly continuing on an incorrect course when proven so, however, is a different matter.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
