There is virtual and virtual
Time for subtle ontological distinctions to cut deep, and deep in your pocket.
Ebay has just banned online auctions of virtual booty (gold, armor, weapons and all the rest) gained in World of Warcraft and other online computer games ("Ebay would not disclose the volume of sales of virtual game items recorded on its website, which reported 53.5 billion dollars worth of online auction trades in 2006").
At the same time, Ebay has not banned similar auctions concerning Second Life, the (no not a game!) ... virtual world and society where people (do not call them players), also represented by animated figures known as "avatars", buy and sell properties, like homes or land.
Both an armor (in World of Warcraft) and a home (in Second Life) are made of digits, "just" computer codes, so why the different treatment? Because, according to Ebay, there is a difference between the contexts: games, in one case, virtual societies in the other.
The distinction is untenable. It is utterly unclear why Second Life is not a game, or why World of Warcraft is not a virtual society: both are man-made environments where agents/people/avatars engage in role-playing activities. To be a bit drammatic: life is a game, language is a game, interactions are game-theoretic... how does Ebay justify its ontological distinction? Is there some hiddden, moral evaluation (game = bad, or not-serious or...) driving it? If so, this is even less satisfactory but it should be at least made explicit. It would seem to be rather arbitrary though.
The effects of the discrimination are going to be negative. When people wish to trade in some goods, banning the possibility of a legal transaction has often the effect of creating a black market, where everyone is worst off: the companies producing and managing the software and the virtual environments (no control and no revenues, plus disincentive to "play" hence less investments on the side of the customers), Ebay (no revenues), and the players, whether sellers (who either become dishonest or are at a disadvantage) or buyers (same reasons, plus the fact that they are not protected by any fair competition in open prices).
It will also be difficult to keep the boundaries between the Yes and the No zones. Poeple could simply agree to attach a game-good bonus to a non-game product. For example, they could start selling Second Life houses that come furnished with plenty of World of Warcraft weapons inside. You just have to pay that extra premium which happens to be what you would bid for those weapons.
Finally, there is a whole real-life, virtual-based economy attached to these digital environments. People make a living playing, earning and selling virtual goods. Banning some while allowing others means interfering arbitrarily with the free economy that should regulate them. It all reminds one of prohibitionism.
Ebay has just banned online auctions of virtual booty (gold, armor, weapons and all the rest) gained in World of Warcraft and other online computer games ("Ebay would not disclose the volume of sales of virtual game items recorded on its website, which reported 53.5 billion dollars worth of online auction trades in 2006").At the same time, Ebay has not banned similar auctions concerning Second Life, the (no not a game!) ... virtual world and society where people (do not call them players), also represented by animated figures known as "avatars", buy and sell properties, like homes or land.Both an armor (in World of Warcraft) and a home (in Second Life) are made of digits, "just" computer codes, so why the different treatment? Because, according to Ebay, there is a difference between the contexts: games, in one case, virtual societies in the other.
The distinction is untenable. It is utterly unclear why Second Life is not a game, or why World of Warcraft is not a virtual society: both are man-made environments where agents/people/avatars engage in role-playing activities. To be a bit drammatic: life is a game, language is a game, interactions are game-theoretic... how does Ebay justify its ontological distinction? Is there some hiddden, moral evaluation (game = bad, or not-serious or...) driving it? If so, this is even less satisfactory but it should be at least made explicit. It would seem to be rather arbitrary though.
The effects of the discrimination are going to be negative. When people wish to trade in some goods, banning the possibility of a legal transaction has often the effect of creating a black market, where everyone is worst off: the companies producing and managing the software and the virtual environments (no control and no revenues, plus disincentive to "play" hence less investments on the side of the customers), Ebay (no revenues), and the players, whether sellers (who either become dishonest or are at a disadvantage) or buyers (same reasons, plus the fact that they are not protected by any fair competition in open prices).
It will also be difficult to keep the boundaries between the Yes and the No zones. Poeple could simply agree to attach a game-good bonus to a non-game product. For example, they could start selling Second Life houses that come furnished with plenty of World of Warcraft weapons inside. You just have to pay that extra premium which happens to be what you would bid for those weapons.
Finally, there is a whole real-life, virtual-based economy attached to these digital environments. People make a living playing, earning and selling virtual goods. Banning some while allowing others means interfering arbitrarily with the free economy that should regulate them. It all reminds one of prohibitionism.
The distinction is too ad-hoc to be taken seriously. Ebay neglects to mention, apparently, that while Linden Labs (Second Life creator) encourages players to 'monetize' their virtual economy, Blizzard (WoW's creator) strongly DIScourages such activity for theirs. I am sure that Blizzard's pressure to 'crack down' on in-game salesmen contributed to ebay's decision, whether they mention it or not. Regardless, analogies to 'old-economy' concepts like prohibitionism might break down here--at the end of the day, Blizzard literally owns that world, while (prima facie) God does not legislate economic policy.
ReplyDelete