“The introduction of Station Exchange did, however, have a marked effect on SOE’s ability to mediate problems that arose as a result of illicit trading via third party auctions. Prior to the introduction of Station Exchange, 40 percent of customer service time was spent on disputes over virtual item sales. Since the debut of the Exchange, the overall customer service time spent has dropped 30 percent.”

Another thing to think about: Most gaming companies aren’t going to crack down on RMTs and bot farmers because they mean more accounts and more money. If the company banned the accounts they would make less money. Therefore the company doesn’t enforce it’s own User Agreement.

Other than that, I have to agree with Jujutsu. Time equals money. Mr. Schwayder, you even admit to contradicting yourself in making your counter-point to that. I’ve played for years, grinding like a fiend and I have problems buying new, good armor. I certainly can’t afford most of the Masters Spells. I don’t play regulary enough, or even long enough to get in on any good raids/groups/guilds. I am on dial-up and will never get voice-chat. But I am a Cheater because I think about buying Plat? I consider spending some of MY real money so I can enjoy MY account more? This makes me a cheater? ‘It ruins the economy’ is shouted by those economics experts, who, I guess, took the class pass/fail. Read Dasein’s post about game resources.
And anytime I hear ‘Level-Playing Field’ I wince. There is no such thing, never has been, never will be. Those that think there are… well, enjoy your happy, bubble world.

That was a very nice post. I particularly liked

Most importantly, this type of business model must be designed into the game to be most effective; you cannot simply slap it on an existing game designed for a subscription-based model and expect great results. You have to be very careful that players cannot simply “buy success” in the game. In general, you want to allow people with limited time to be able to buy perks that allow them to keep up with their in-game friends that have significantly more time. Striking a balance requires a good designer with a firm grasp on the repercussions of this business model.

That’s why I wish the discourse was less of a morality play and more about the design issues.

Man, you should try reading your own comments sometimes.

Anyway, I wrote about this topic on my own blog a while ago. The pay-for-perks (or “RMT from the company”) business model is becoming more of a driving force. I think that buying in-game goods is a positive thing, because it allows us to have a wider variety of game types; it allows for more profitability with fewer players, so not every company has to clone the most popular game of the moment to “succeed”.

My thoughts.

Lately, I find myself sitting on both sides of the argument whether game-enabled RMT is a good or bad thing. I admit to have being an ultra “gaming purist”, as Ryan had self-described, however after rolling a character on one of EQ2’s Station Exchange servers, you could say my assumptions on in-game “morality” have changed. I get the feeling that many anti-RMT have closeted views on why someone would use game-enabled RMT. The majority of the arguments I see (knowing that these too are limited experiences) is that its “cheating”, “unfair advantage”, “loot-centric greed”. Most uses I have discovered are to purchase varying characters/classes to support personal gaming activities, whether it be raiding, role-playing, general game appeal, or crafting purposes. Game money purchases come in a close second and center on the same purposes as above. The key here is “supporting personal gaming activities” which equals “continued play” which fundamentally equals “game lifespan and server population“.

Here is a personal example:

“After playing and leveling a single character/class for several months (to high level = end game), I was developing game burn-out at rapidly elevating level the more I played. Bottom-line, I hated the class. However, after so much effort invested, re-rolling was a daunting task. My free time is precious, and re-doing all the low level content was not appealing. So I sold my main and used the money to buy an equal level different class. Needless to say, I still play the game and truly enjoy playing now that I am not stuck with a class that I hate. Without the RMT, I would have cancelled my account.”

Now, does this reason make me a cheater? Perhaps to some, yes. Does this make me a poorly skilled player? Heck no, I was far worse at my previous character. Does this make me a greedy person? I was farming for good loot far before I switched characters. Actually, I don’t know a single player who does not run a dungeon a few times to get a good drop. So what I am trying to get at is that the only problem someone may have with me is that, unlike him or her, I had not run this particular character through all the content that she or he had to achieve their current state. = Basically, the comparisons we try to make between each other- to compete in a game we cannot win, ever (much like reality).

Like in reality, someone will always have a better job, house, possessions, seemingly better family life, etc, etc, etc. The only way to actually enjoy life/gaming experiences is to not worry about others, but only yourself and your experiences. But then again, some enjoy making themselves miserable.

What’s wrong is RMT, is a subset of player’s perceptions.
What right with RMT, is fulfilling a sub-set of players wants for gaming enjoyment.
What makes money for games in the long run = RMT enabled servers.

People will RMT. But rather than a few direct interactions on ebay, which probably won’t cost a MMO a single player, Yantis will persuade a guidemaster to empty his coffers, and a week down the line when it’s discovered you’re down 30 customers.

Which, again, is more harmful?

The neo-luddite stance on RMT, trying to run a virtual war on drugs which has mainly succeded in annoying paying customers, isn’t working. Start designing away from the grind, and start thinking – Eve Online allows the sale of gametime codes for in-game cash… you can cash IN, but not OUT. And it crushed the Ebay value of the currency by a factor of FIFTEEN with no inflation.

Now. THAT is progress.

Ryan Shwayder, the “he’s a warrior 11 too” issue is quite simple – player skill elemements.

In essense, the arguments around this seem morality based (even a hint of faith-based), and you can’t legislate morality.

That’s what it all boils down to for me. There’s no broad agreement on the morality of RMT. Written discussions tend to wind down to “it’s bad”, and yet the huge level of activity seems to imply “It’s good”.

If you can solve this one, you probably have a good handle on solving other intractable social problems like drug abuse. And drawing that parallel makes me think RMT will never end up completely wiped out.

It’s one thing to say it’s not allowed, but the publisher has to put their money where there mouth is and decide that losing a paying customer is worth it.

…The problems that game worlds face with the introduction of an outside market influence, such as real world currency, are many. Primarily at play, is the basic integrity of the organic in-world economy. Virtual economies are constantly evolving and changing under the press of the distribution and prevalence of game goods. Because virtual worlds do not have finite resource allocations as exist in real world economics, they face unique challenges and their integrity hangs upon a delicate balance. Altering this balance with an exterior factor, not accounted for in the design and development of the economy, can have drastic and dangerous impacts on that system…

Deep engaging content that motivates people to play for years, without excessive use of time sink mechanics is entirely possible.

I agree.

Expecting this to occur without RMT is the very minimum that designers must start with. Why should a game require money to suppliment or replace the grind?

I must respectfully disagree. Why is that the very minimum? Why shouldn’t a game allow money to supplement or replace the grind?

Re the language that frequently gets used, ‘offensive’, ‘cheating’, ‘whores’, etc. Gordon Walton just posted a comment at Terra Nova [about EBay] that resonates with me…

This activity will find new venues, and be of similar size later this year. The underlying market (and human behaviors) still exist no matter how the activity is surpressed. Without actual physical coercion (i.e. laws leading to large fines or jail time), I see very little changing as it relates to size and scope.

In essense, the arguments around this seem morality based (even a hint of faith-based), and you can’t legislate morality.