Originally posted by Lepidus [quote]Originally posted by dunadurium [b] Seriously, if you just tell them that you already have your advertising space full, then you can still run unbiased coverage on the issue more "purely". With the ad up there it just seems you guys are indeed slanted toward one side, ya know? For example, say im reading a good article on the site about secondary market, not leaning to either side just giving facts and what not and i look up and see a secondary market ad, doesn't that just defeat the purpose of trying to be unbiased on the issue? LOL anyway... [/color] [/b][/quote] What you suggest is still making a judgement. And really, how is having ads up there slanting us for or against them? We have ads for all sorts of games, some get good reviews and some get bad reviews. It has nothing to do with anything. By the above logic we should have no advertising at all. Obviously, that's ideal, but common. We need to eat
Yes I know its making a judgement but again it is the ethical thing i was saying. But yeah your right it is slightly unfair to them but if you tie it into the ethics of it then that is all IGE could really expect to unbiasedly get no?-to get honest, not to mention free, coverage, be it negative or positive. With a paid add they have the freedom to say what they want about themselves and that is deceptive to people not following the issue.
The games are different, as I've mentioned. They are the product and what the community is based around. The secondary market on the other hand affects these games and you can see the effects, and because of these affects many people hate the secondary market. There are those that don't have an opinion though just because they have not been around long enough or just have not looked into it etc. To these people the adds are deceptive and biased.
One more point, as I anticipate you taking down my point of hurting the games...If the secondary market is not negatively affecting the games then why on earth would a developer put it in the EULA or ToS?
Originally posted by dunadurium Yes I know its making a judgement but again it is the ethical thing i was saying. But yeah your right it is slightly unfair to them but if you tie it into the ethics of it then that is all IGE could really expect to unbiasedly get no?-to get honest, not to mention free, coverage, be it negative or positive. With a paid add they have the freedom to say what they want about themselves and that is deceptive to people not following the issue. Dunadurium
I think you just defined advertising.
Sorry, but they have as much right to advertise their services as anyone else. You're back to the slippery slope argument. If we deny them that, can we then deny a game like Auto Assault that because it uses instancing?
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
lol, well i think we are just going in circles now...: Originally posted by dunadurium and AGAIN, your analogy is inaccurate in that, what you refer to is not a "supplementary" service of the industry advertised. That parent group example is just like saying that, just because a large group of people (like myself) think WOW is not worthy to be called an MMO, that you should not even support it on this site...are you going to do that? of course not! and I don't hold any illusions of that fact. The problem arises when you have a supplementary service that affects the industry and community, whether some people consider it right or not compared to their OWN morals and values, it is still ethically wrong to advertise. In your example, this would be advertising downloading movies. Now this example is in very strong correlation to what we see here. Many people do download movies, many morally justify it by their own values but it is stull not 100% legal or ethically right. and guess what, most filesharing companies are not "sued into oblivion", simply because there are many other issues to consider other than weather it is against the law or not(which it undoubtedly is), the fact is that the law just does not support easy ways of dealing with issues like this yet!This really does hit the nail on the head i think, and I don't see how you could deny this logic... im open to being proven otherwise of course. [...] One last analogy before i have to go: If you take someone who supports the making of knockoff brandnames, because they like how its cheap and they can still follow the trends of our society without spending their entire savings, goes and buys that fashion magazine from my last post. Is it reasonable for them to expect ads for knockoffs in that magazine???? No of course not. Here is the thing though, and it refers to a few posts back that i think i didn't explain efficiently:It does not mean that the magazine necessarily has announced all out bloody war on the production of knockoff merchandise, simply that they don't actively support it.........! Yes?
~Dunadurium
Again Auto Assault is a GAME, whereas the Secondary Market is something that affects all games-the whole industry..
I think I could probably make an argument that by using feature X, game Y is not an MMO. For example, the pressure people apply to have Guild Wars removed from the site... but I digress.
Let's just personally agree to disagree. If anyone else has any comments or concerns about this issue though, feel free to revive the discussion.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Well I hope at least Sigil doesn't reward MMORPG with Beta slots to give away through contests.
That would be just rewarding IGE indirectly but anyway we know where this site stands in $$$ to stay afloat another thing is MMORPG isn't exactly that widely known so I wouldn't exactly be rattling your "Publicity Power Sabers" just yet.
Originally posted by Lepidus I think I could probably make an argument that by using feature X, game Y is not an MMO. For example, the pressure people apply to have Guild Wars removed from the site... but I digress. Let's just personally agree to disagree. If anyone else has any comments or concerns about this issue though, feel free to revive the discussion.
Are you saying that you accept only MMO's for your advertising space? Or are you mixing concepts (coverage, advertising, and forums)? In the former case, IGE goes right out for not being an MMO.
In the latter case: The example becomes somewhat irrelevant. Pointing out that it is wrong/shady practice to kick a game off the site and stop reviewing it due to your own personal tastes moves away from the topic of the discussion. The discussion isn't even, as far as I am concerned, if one should refuse ads from a company that does harm to the mmorpg bussiness in general. It is directly related to their blatantly unethical practice.
Question: If given a real, tangible example of how a company knowingly acts in an unethical manner (not merely knowing that they perform the action, but knowing that it is unethical), would you remove the ad unless the company changed its practice?
Subtopic: Are EULA's legal? I will, at this point, assume that you have a right to set terms and conditions for use of your own product, to be accepted prior to any arrangements being finalized. (As long as the customer isn't stuck with a worthless CD and two months of playtime to be paid under terms he might not be ready to accept)
The future: Adellion Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants) Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens) Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Your argument relies on a single flawed assumption: that gold trading companies are unethical or bad for MMORPGs.
I am not saying you're right or wrong, but you cannot just paint that as an absolute truth. Some hate them, some love them.
My GuildWars example was to show how one person's personal opinion cannot influence our advertising policies. My point being that an argument could be formed for just about any game to get it kicked off the site and to stop offering them advertising space.
We present ads that we feel are of interest to our community. Mainly MMOs, sometimes other things (like the SanDisk up top as I write, etc.).
The only reason we have to stop these ads would be if they were proven to be doing something against the law (which they have not at this time) or if we felt they were a dishonest company (IE: ripping people off). None of these things have happened.
I realize you have strong opinions on them and no amount of arguing will change that. My basic point is simple: all I ask from advertising on any site is that it does not have any impact on the content I read. The way we do things now allows us to cover the issue. If we took some moral stand on the subject, we'd forfit that ability.
Anyway, I believe I'm just repeating myself now, so unless something new comes up, I'm going to sign off this thread (I'm still reading though).
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Originally posted by Lepidus Your argument relies on a single flawed assumption: that gold trading companies are unethical or bad for MMORPGs.
I find that you are only partially right in this statement. Yes, I assume / believe that gold trading companies are both unethical and bad for MMORPGs in general. However, I did not use this as a base for my argument.
My argument is that if their practice is unethical / harmful to just a single one mmorpg they "serve", then that is enough to make their practice unethical, and unless they then display a will to change this, they are obviously knowingly unethical.
I am not saying it is the current status. Sooner I am saying: If this were to happen, would you then remove any ads for that company? Because this is something that could be done without first rewriting the law. (If a company offers a service, and you are able to get that service from them for a game where such services are not permitted, then you know. Based on this, you can ask them to change, and based on their action you have an objective basis for passing judgement.)
I may still be in the realm of opinions, but I feel that the reasoning behind it is strong. Those who love them simply don't make them valid, unless they also respect the limits given by those who do not want them.
The future: Adellion Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants) Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens) Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Your argument relies on a single flawed assumption: that gold trading companies are unethical or bad for MMORPGs.[...]
I would say that assumption is pretty well based in truth:
----------------Quote:
Blizzard Entertainment has permanently banned more than one thousand users from its massively multiplayer World of Warcraft title after an investigation into "gold farming".
An investigation into gold farming, which involves collecting large amounts of gold and selling it to other individuals in exchange for real world currency, has been going on for several weeks.
In a posting on the game's official forum, in-game support manager Maleki said Blizzard has "issued permanent suspensions to over one thousand accounts that have been engaging in this practice".
"We do not condone such actions and will take decisive action as they are against our policy and damage the game economy as a whole. We will continue researching this matter.
So the secondary market is obviously well aware of this and so is knowingly unethical. Thats the bottom line. Besides the dev companies are the ones that are affected by all this and they are also the very ones that make the games so they should be respected. The Devs know their games more than anyone else- do you agree with that? If yeah then they know above all else if the secondary market's influence is positive or not on their game! Therefore, even if a few player agree with this or even a few dev companies, it does not make up for what i just quoted from blizzard or from the many other companies.
Lepidus:
The only reason we have to stop these ads would be if they were proven to be doing something against the law (which they have not at this time) or if we felt they were a dishonest company (IE: ripping people off). None of these things have happened.
If you have not already, you need to read this article: Wage Slaves -now thats great journalism!
here's excerpt:-----------------------
Weeks go by as I chase ghosts and rumors of Chinese workers clicking 12 hours a day. Word has it that 300 farmers are working at computers lined up in airport hangars somewhere in Asia. After all, Lineage II banned certain Chinese IPs for a reason. Finally, I get in contact with a man in his 30s who goes by the name Smooth Criminal. He's a partner in one of the largest sellers of MMORPG gold, and he isn't apologetic. His rap sheet: banned from Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, Shadowbane, Star Wars Galaxies, and Ultima Online again. He says once someone even traded him a wedding ring worth $2,000 for WOW gold.
Smooth Criminal's game cartel made $1.5 million from Star Wars Galaxies alone last year, and individually, he's made as much as $700,000 in a single year. "[SWG] built my new house, which I paid for in cash," he says. "So when you ring my doorbell, it plays the Star Wars music." Smooth Criminal is in charge of writing programs, finding exploits, and locating in-game "dupes" (bugs for duplicating gold or items). "I have a real job, but when there's a dupe, I call in sick," he says. It costs him more money to actually go to his "real job." "When I dupe," Smooth Criminal adds, "I farm billions on every game server and spread out my activities." He then uses three accounts to launder the gold: a duper account, a filter account, and a delivery accounteach created using different IPs, credit cards, and computers. This way, it's hard to trace the source, and the gold comes back clean.
-----------------------------
Yeah try tell the devs to catch guys like that??? Its clearly not as simple as many people think...
I haven't done much posting here, but I have to say that I find the stance of mmorpg.com disturbing.
You'll only consider changing your stance if it is shown to be illegal? Let's just be glad that Abraham Lincoln didn't rest upon such a slippery slope.
How about we put aside all these weighty questions of morality and ethics related to the good of the game industry and keep it real simple.
Game company XYZ has it in their EULA that it is not okay to buy/sell/trade their virtual goods.
Secondary Market company ABC says they don't care what it says in the XYZ's EULA and profit from buying/selling/trading XYZ's virtual goods.
You can either support XYZ or ABC, but not both. Which do you choose? Well, since it really is about money, you choose ABC, right?
The reality is, I, and many others, are a fan of the games (including the game by XYZ), and not of the Secondary Market endeavors, nor of the MMORPG.com site specifically.
Setting precendents? mmorpg.com is setting the precedence of supporting for-profit breaking of EULAs.
When can I expect to see advertisements for server emulators here?
Originally posted by Artheos I haven't done much posting here, but I have to say that I find the stance of mmorpg.com disturbing. You'll only consider changing your stance if it is shown to be illegal? Let's just be glad that Abraham Lincoln didn't rest upon such a slippery slope. How about we put aside all these weighty questions of morality and ethics related to the good of the game industry and keep it real simple. Game company XYZ has it in their EULA that it is not okay to buy/sell/trade their virtual goods. Secondary Market company ABC says they don't care what it says in the XYZ's EULA and profit from buying/selling/trading XYZ's virtual goods. You can either support XYZ or ABC, but not both. Which do you choose? Well, since it really is about money, you choose ABC, right? The reality is, I, and many others, are a fan of the games (including the game by XYZ), and not of the Secondary Market endeavors, nor of the MMORPG.com site specifically. Setting precendents? mmorpg.com is setting the precedence of supporting for-profit breaking of EULAs. When can I expect to see advertisements for server emulators here?
If Game Company XYZ has it in their EULA to dissallow the trade in their virtual goods, then it also strongly implies that they care about that trade. If they do indeed care about that trade more than they care about the size of their subscription base (which I strongly dispute) then they would take measures to stop that trade at its source.
For example, but not limited to :
constant monitoring of player naming (farmers almost never name thier characters)
constant monitoring of currency trading to flag large currency transaction for investigation
altering currency to make it non tradeable
forcing all trades to be with NPC's only and removing player to player trade all together
removing currency and replacing it with NPC vendor credit based on your exploits. So if you kill a monster it gives you Xgp credit with an NPC vendor
making all items and loot soul bound and no drop
having a monitored intermediary based player to player trade system
Now thats what I just thought of off the top of my head. Devs with more experience in these systems and how they work than me could come up with heaps better solutions than my ham fisted rubbish. However their utter, utter lack of any movement toward developing systems to stem the tide from its source 100% confirms my contiunued assertion that the problem lies in the games.
If the games werent so mind numbingly boring and so completely geared toward item and money based advancement this problem would not exist.
Its like the Government supplying the population with heroin and then saying we are going to bust you for taking it. Its madeness.
MMORPG.com is using the revnue it makes from advertising this perfectly legal service to provide you with a forum to tell them you dont like their site.
The irony of that is not lost on me... its a shame its lost on you.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Originally posted by Jorev Forums / Chat / Messaging RulesAt MMORPG.COM we make every effort to make this a safe and enjoyable destination for those in the MMORPG community. You may NOT use our communication devices (Forums,Chat,Private Message System) for any of the following: Trading of in-game items or game accounts for real-world money. Our trade forums are only for in-game transactions Doesn't the spirit of this rule apply to adverts even though some lawyer type will claim they don't technically use the forums? Aren't adverts a message source? This site is starting to get trashy and overrun with these resellers and powerlevelling services. Is this why we originally enjoyed playing MMOGs? I think not. Why then condone bastardizing our virtual gaming world?
Here is our stance on these ads and the reason for the board rules:
Board Rule: It exists because if we were to condone it, such as putting up a board for virtual trading, we would be providing people a forum through which they could make transactions. Thus, if party A is ripped off by party B on a board where we condone trading, then we run some risks that we would rather not run.
Advertisements: IGE's advertising contract with us has expired. In their place, we have this new campaign from the company you noticed. Also, as we accepted their bid to advertise with us, we are confident that this company employs adequate practices to ensure those who do wish to use their service get what they pay for.[/quote]
Please tell us how much of a bid does one need to have your advertisement space? How long do the contracts go for? How long was IGE's former contract? BTW, car ads do have a target market at your site. The majority of gamers are teens to 30ish. The prime car buying age. As long as car companies can afford your rates, why not? I do agree on NOT allowing the dating ads. They take even more away from the feel of this site.
There MUST be other companies, brands, you could contact to fill your ad space. Do you even have a marketing department to contact other company advertising departments?
Legally, all those things are allowed in games and are a big part of them - whether we like them or not. If the services they offered were not legal, they'd have long since been sued into oblivion.
Sorry, but you are very [i][b]incorrect[/i][/b]. Mythic, the makers of Dark Age of Camelot, litterally DID sue into oblivion, one of the largest of these types of companies. MMORPG companies DO have legal recourse. And yes it is illegal to do this in mmorpgs - IF the game makers deem it so. How much of a big or small part of each mmorpg is it? It's really a moot question, because by giving in to it "because it is a big part" actually helps make it a larger part of the mmorpgs which fuels the reason that "because it is a big part".
Back to my main reaons for posting - that YES there has been a legal case against these companies. A legal precident. Done by Mythic, who litterally sued one of the largest ones into litteral oblivion.
So, once that hurdle is cleared, it begins a very slippery slope when journalistic sources start moralizing on advertisement. If we decide we do not like this particular aspect of the genre, then what stops us from forbidding advertising from games we did not review strongly? Arguments could then be made we could wipe out entire games simply on whether individuals here like them.
Journalistic sources have always moralized. It is known as making a judgement call. BTW the NY Times does filter out certain political parties - even though US law allows them to exist. But the NY Times considers itself a family paper, and does not support political extreemism, and thus filters out certain political ads. Heck the NY Times twice got take to the cleaners over its idea of "journalistic morality."
You moderators at MMORPG.com have to make your own judgement call/calls. And be willing to change your judgement calls, and/or accept whatever the consequences will/may be. IMHO you should look at the option of making more of an initiative to find another advertiser to buy up your ad contracts. Heck, post here or in a new thread what your requirements are, length of the contract, the fees you charge. Many of use here, including me, are connected to advertising. Many of us here work at real life jobs that could help you out.
lincoln didnt give a fuck about black people, he did everything he could to stop the war and keep blacks enslaved.
when the war couldnt be stopped, he made "freedom" and "suffrage" the poster boys for the conflict much like bush hypocritically uses "freedom" as his rationalization of "operation iraqi freedom" (hooray for euphuisms)
the best thing about mmo's is that it's another world where you arent perpetually kept down because of your poverty like in the real world, where you can actually do something about it.
selling items and money in game ruins this concept. it's no longer a game, it's another extension of the misery of capitalism
this would be my main objection to the exchange of game funs for real world currency
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Originally posted by dunadurium Yes, exactly! Thank you for that. Is there no way though, to write in an EULA that any services providing the players of said game to sell, buy or otherwise trade any content for real world currency that was created by [developers of said game] is not legal. It was not the intent of [company] to use the content in such ways and is detrimental to the product, and thus incures losses for the company? I mean, there must be some way to write that so there are no loopholes. Recording companies did it to napster, but i guess there the losses were more provable. ~Dunadurium
No, recording companies never did it to Napster. No one was doing anything, because it was a "new fronteier". Then the well known Heavy Metal -> Hard Rock -> Rock group [b][i]Metallica[/b][/i] stepped up, and used their OWN money to go after Napster. Metallica put out their own money to hire their own lawyers. And in the longrun Metallica won. It simply takes ONE, or a few, to start the snowball rolling. I still remember seeing the owner of Napster on TV crying over how he grew up with Metallica, how much he loved Metallica, and respected them, and whining over why one of his most favorite groups was now going after him.
So far Mythic, the makers of DAoC, has stepped up, and scored a MAJOR victory. They've started the snowball rolling. Who else will join Mythic? Who else will take the initiative?
We can debate this forever (and I encourage you to), but to me it comes back to a simple fact: by not taking an editorial side, we can actually debate the issue rationally. PC Gamer has lost that right. Anything they publish is just grinding in the axe on a stance they've already made clear.
Trust me, I understand the importance of this issue and over the next few weeks, you will see a lot of coverage on both sides of the issue. We've got Brad McQuaid commenting on our next podcast and I'm in the process of getting together an extremely interesting feature that really delves into the issue from both ends.
Part of having that liberty though is staying editorially neutral on what is still a grey area.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Originally posted by Saturnlaser I know that Sigil let go of all the fansites that were purchased by IGE,Cindy Bowens also stated that representives from IGE showed to offer a deal but instead were shown the exit with a "Don't come back" sign.I wonder also if Brad McQaid when he did the interview with this site not too long ago was aware that this site has decided to take "plat/gold" seller dollars as adverts.If they let go of those fansites then I wonder what thier stance is when they do interviews with sites that run IGE like companies adverts.Or maybe he wasn't aware of it at the time and this site decided not to let him know,very interesting indeed.Kinda funny actually,interviewing a lead dev from a upcoming game,whose official stance towards plat,gold,power leveling companies is well known, with ads to buy plat plastered on the home page.I doubt if he even know.
W H O A H !!!!!!!
Veeery intresting post you made!!! Beyond thought provoking!!! Vanguard is one of the most looked at games. There will definatly be future press releases, and interviews. Would MMORPG.com be willing to sacrifice future interviews if Brad McQuaid were to find out MMORPG.com now runs ads for companies that Brad is against?????
We make absolutely no secret of who advertises on our site. Every game you see featured is fully aware of any ads we run, including Sigil. We've covered them in the past and will do so in the future. They understand that our advertising and editorial departments do not influence each other.
We had IGE ads for over a year and now they are gone. We currently have MyVirtualTrader. As I said, we've always been quite up front about it. I mean really. It IS advertising afterall. Hard to hide
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Originally posted by Lepidus Originally posted by Kormac Exactly how is PC Gamer's precedent on this actually dangerous? I'd like to see the point elaborated.
Our position is no different than that of mainstream media when faced with similar situations. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it would apply.
Say the NY Times editors do not agree with the war in Iraq. In the next election, your Democrats run against war and the Republics run for war. Can the NY Times then decide because they morally do not agree with the war that they will only run advertisments for one political party?
Maybe the Washington Post then decides they do not agree with Nike's production practices overseas. Are they then allowed to only advertise Reebok shoes?
That is the reason for not making moral judgments when it comes to gold traders. Yes, it is not likely our advertisers will ever be on such important issues, but the principal still applies.
It is for that reason I think the PC Gamer decision is dangerous. They've set the precident and can now have any ads they publish called into question. It's a slippery slope.
These examples of yours are made moot by the fact that the NY Times, and other major newspapers do indeed put their weight behind political parties, etc... The NY Times for example, in the open, in their own paper, will tell if they support whatever Republican or Democrat is running for Mayor, or other position. Same with the Unions who will come out and say which politician they officially support. The NY Times is a well known Liberal/Demorate slanting publication. The National Review is a well known Conservative/Republican slanting publication. We really wish you would stop trying to use other publications as examples, and decide on your own what example you choose to set. What judgement calls you choose to make. BTW, again, the NY Times has been caught in some batant bad judgement calls, bad moral decisions, and even illegal activities. Yet another reason to NOT go "by what others do", but go by what your own compass tells you to do.
We are doing what our compass tells us. It just so happens there is a lot of precedent.
I'll add about the NY Times example, there is a difference between an editorial stance and flat out slanting your coverage. For example, whether or not they endorse people as a paper (a practice I do not personally like), they still show ads for all sides.
We've had writers go very strongly against this issue, as mentioned. If the article is well done and considers all arguments, we'll publish on either side. There is a far leap from that to saying that as an outlet we refuse to endorse an entire sector of the game industry and will not run their ads. At that point, the entire site is bias and we lose any realistic right to publish information on the topic.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
If Game Company XYZ has it in their EULA to dissallow the trade in their virtual goods, then it also strongly implies that they care about that trade. If they do indeed care about that trade more than they care about the size of their subscription base (which I strongly dispute) then they would take measures to stop that trade at its source. For example, but not limited to :
constant monitoring of player naming (farmers almost never name thier characters)
constant monitoring of currency trading to flag large currency transaction for investigation
altering currency to make it non tradeable
forcing all trades to be with NPC's only and removing player to player trade all together
removing currency and replacing it with NPC vendor credit based on your exploits. So if you kill a monster it gives you Xgp credit with an NPC vendor
making all items and loot soul bound and no drop
having a monitored intermediary based player to player trade system
Now thats what I just thought of off the top of my head. Devs with more experience in these systems and how they work than me could come up with heaps better solutions than my ham fisted rubbish. However their utter, utter lack of any movement toward developing systems to stem the tide from its source 100% confirms my contiunued assertion that the problem lies in the games. If the games werent so mind numbingly boring and so completely geared toward item and money based advancement this problem would not exist. Its like the Government supplying the population with heroin and then saying we are going to bust you for taking it. Its madeness. MMORPG.com is using the revnue it makes from advertising this perfectly legal service to provide you with a forum to tell them you dont like their site. The irony of that is not lost on me... its a shame its lost on you.
So if a game is poorly designed, it's appropriate to toss aside your explicit agreement and even further, encourage others to?
If a game is mind numbingly boring, you simply don't pay and don't play. How is that hard to understand?
Originally posted by Lepidus We can debate this forever (and I encourage you to), but to me it comes back to a simple fact: by not taking an editorial side, we can actually debate the issue rationally. PC Gamer has lost that right. Anything they publish is just grinding in the axe on a stance they've already made clear.Trust me, I understand the importance of this issue and over the next few weeks, you will see a lot of coverage on both sides of the issue. We've got Brad McQuaid commenting on our next podcast and I'm in the process of getting together an extremely interesting feature that really delves into the issue from both ends.Part of having that liberty though is staying editorially neutral on what is still a grey area.
I disagree, you have clearly taken an editorial side. mmorpg.com favors the secondary market, regardless of their honoring (or not) of the EULAs for various games, because the secondary market gives you cold hard cash.
In other words, they've bought you.
Regarding the other post concerning the service mmorpg.com provides. I no longer do anything on the site except visit this thread. Once I've grown bored of this thread, I'll remove mmorpg.com from my favorites if they are still supporting the secondary market.
So if a game is poorly designed, it's appropriate to toss aside your explicit agreement and even further, encourage others to? If a game is mind numbingly boring, you simply don't pay and don't play. How is that hard to understand?
No problem for me to understand thats why Im not currently playing any MMOs. The entire current crop are so boring and full of farmers that I cant understand why anyone would want to play them. But the difference is I dont blame 2nd and 3rd parties for a problem that begins and ends with the makers of the game.
If a game is so poorly designed that it makes it impossible for the company to police its OWN EULA.... then whos fault is that when people exploit it ?
I just cant understand why so many of you are foaming at the collective mouth at people 3 and 4 stages down the train of this issue. You should direct your teen angst at the source of the problem which is the game developers or your just wasting your breath.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Originally posted by Razorback But the difference is I dont blame 2nd and 3rd parties for a problem that begins and ends with the makers of the game. If a game is so poorly designed that it makes it impossible for the company to police its OWN EULA.... then whos fault is that when people exploit it ? I just cant understand why so many of you are foaming at the collective mouth at people 3 and 4 stages down the train of this issue. You should direct your teen angst at the source of the problem which is the game developers or your just wasting your breath.
lol, My "teen angst" tells me that stopping this issue is not so simple as you make it out. I really find it funny how some people assume, no matter what, that everything bad in MMOs is the direct scheming and evil planning of the devs... Do you really think that all developers just care about money? Well maybe but most understand that a good product goes hand in hand with this.
When people are bashing on the DnL devs for instance, I sometimes even feel sorry for those guys. I mean, they were trying something completely revolutionary, and they obviously put a lot of heart into it. Its not like they were trying to make a bad game.. seriously, i don't get it when people bash these devs that are actually trying to move the genre forward.
The fact is that these games are so complex to make, and to predict all the different variables, that you can't make every feature work perfect. Just consider the social side of it.. its like a government: sure they "control" the state but they have no true control (only light sway) over how everything will run in the end and many times its a balancing act just like designing an mmo. Its not so cut and dry as many seem to presume. (buy or borrow Bartle's "designing virtual worlds" to really see what im talking about)
Bottom line: it is not so simple to stop the secondary market as you say and especially not by the devs alone. Look at that article i linked a couple posts back about asian farming rings. These guys are professional farmers, and know exactly what they are doing, and as such they don't make it so simple to catch them.
Originally posted by Razorback But the difference is I dont blame 2nd and 3rd parties for a problem that begins and ends with the makers of the game. If a game is so poorly designed that it makes it impossible for the company to police its OWN EULA.... then whos fault is that when people exploit it ? I just cant understand why so many of you are foaming at the collective mouth at people 3 and 4 stages down the train of this issue. You should direct your teen angst at the source of the problem which is the game developers or your just wasting your breath.
I posit that you should. Consider that the driving motivator for any commercial organization is profit. If the secondary market increases sales of the games, then poor game design mechanics (from your perspective) are masked behind the financial success of the MMOs in question.
It doesn't matter how many people are complaining about the game, it really only matters how many people are paying for the game.
If folks have a strong opinion about a particular facet of the situation, that doesn't mean that they are ignoring all other facets.
Originally posted by Razorback If a game is so poorly designed that it makes it impossible for the company to police its OWN EULA.... then whos fault is that when people exploit it ?
The people who exploit it.
The future: Adellion Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants) Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens) Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Comments
Yes I know its making a judgement but again it is the ethical thing i was saying. But yeah your right it is slightly unfair to them but if you tie it into the ethics of it then that is all IGE could really expect to unbiasedly get no?-to get honest, not to mention free, coverage, be it negative or positive. With a paid add they have the freedom to say what they want about themselves and that is deceptive to people not following the issue.
The games are different, as I've mentioned. They are the product and what the community is based around. The secondary market on the other hand affects these games and you can see the effects, and because of these affects many people hate the secondary market. There are those that don't have an opinion though just because they have not been around long enough or just have not looked into it etc. To these people the adds are deceptive and biased.
One more point, as I anticipate you taking down my point of hurting the games...If the secondary market is not negatively affecting the games then why on earth would a developer put it in the EULA or ToS?
Dunadurium
"Silly rabbit, WoW's for kids"
************************
I think you just defined advertising.
Sorry, but they have as much right to advertise their services as anyone else. You're back to the slippery slope argument. If we deny them that, can we then deny a game like Auto Assault that because it uses instancing?
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Again Auto Assault is a GAME, whereas the Secondary Market is something that affects all games-the whole industry..
~Dunadurium
"Silly rabbit, WoW's for kids"
************************
I think I could probably make an argument that by using feature X, game Y is not an MMO. For example, the pressure people apply to have Guild Wars removed from the site... but I digress.
Let's just personally agree to disagree. If anyone else has any comments or concerns about this issue though, feel free to revive the discussion.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Well I hope at least Sigil doesn't reward MMORPG with Beta slots to give away through contests.
That would be just rewarding IGE indirectly but anyway we know where this site stands in $$$ to stay afloat another thing is MMORPG isn't exactly that widely known so I wouldn't exactly be rattling your "Publicity Power Sabers" just yet.
Are you saying that you accept only MMO's for your advertising space? Or are you mixing concepts (coverage, advertising, and forums)? In the former case, IGE goes right out for not being an MMO.
In the latter case: The example becomes somewhat irrelevant. Pointing out that it is wrong/shady practice to kick a game off the site and stop reviewing it due to your own personal tastes moves away from the topic of the discussion. The discussion isn't even, as far as I am concerned, if one should refuse ads from a company that does harm to the mmorpg bussiness in general. It is directly related to their blatantly unethical practice.
Question: If given a real, tangible example of how a company knowingly acts in an unethical manner (not merely knowing that they perform the action, but knowing that it is unethical), would you remove the ad unless the company changed its practice?
Subtopic: Are EULA's legal? I will, at this point, assume that you have a right to set terms and conditions for use of your own product, to be accepted prior to any arrangements being finalized. (As long as the customer isn't stuck with a worthless CD and two months of playtime to be paid under terms he might not be ready to accept)
The future: Adellion
Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually
Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants)
Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens)
Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Your argument relies on a single flawed assumption: that gold trading companies are unethical or bad for MMORPGs.
I am not saying you're right or wrong, but you cannot just paint that as an absolute truth. Some hate them, some love them.
My GuildWars example was to show how one person's personal opinion cannot influence our advertising policies. My point being that an argument could be formed for just about any game to get it kicked off the site and to stop offering them advertising space.
We present ads that we feel are of interest to our community. Mainly MMOs, sometimes other things (like the SanDisk up top as I write, etc.).
The only reason we have to stop these ads would be if they were proven to be doing something against the law (which they have not at this time) or if we felt they were a dishonest company (IE: ripping people off). None of these things have happened.
I realize you have strong opinions on them and no amount of arguing will change that. My basic point is simple: all I ask from advertising on any site is that it does not have any impact on the content I read. The way we do things now allows us to cover the issue. If we took some moral stand on the subject, we'd forfit that ability.
Anyway, I believe I'm just repeating myself now, so unless something new comes up, I'm going to sign off this thread (I'm still reading though).
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
I find that you are only partially right in this statement. Yes, I assume / believe that gold trading companies are both unethical and bad for MMORPGs in general. However, I did not use this as a base for my argument.
My argument is that if their practice is unethical / harmful to just a single one mmorpg they "serve", then that is enough to make their practice unethical, and unless they then display a will to change this, they are obviously knowingly unethical.
I am not saying it is the current status. Sooner I am saying: If this were to happen, would you then remove any ads for that company? Because this is something that could be done without first rewriting the law. (If a company offers a service, and you are able to get that service from them for a game where such services are not permitted, then you know. Based on this, you can ask them to change, and based on their action you have an objective basis for passing judgement.)
I may still be in the realm of opinions, but I feel that the reasoning behind it is strong. Those who love them simply don't make them valid, unless they also respect the limits given by those who do not want them.
The future: Adellion
Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually
Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants)
Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens)
Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
If you have not already, you need to read this article: Wage Slaves -now thats great journalism!
here's excerpt:-----------------------
Weeks go by as I chase ghosts and rumors of Chinese workers clicking 12 hours a day. Word has it that 300 farmers are working at computers lined up in airport hangars somewhere in Asia. After all, Lineage II banned certain Chinese IPs for a reason. Finally, I get in contact with a man in his 30s who goes by the name Smooth Criminal. He's a partner in one of the largest sellers of MMORPG gold, and he isn't apologetic. His rap sheet: banned from Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, Shadowbane, Star Wars Galaxies, and Ultima Online again. He says once someone even traded him a wedding ring worth $2,000 for WOW gold.
Smooth Criminal's game cartel made $1.5 million from Star Wars Galaxies alone last year, and individually, he's made as much as $700,000 in a single year. "[SWG] built my new house, which I paid for in cash," he says. "So when you ring my doorbell, it plays the Star Wars music." Smooth Criminal is in charge of writing programs, finding exploits, and locating in-game "dupes" (bugs for duplicating gold or items). "I have a real job, but when there's a dupe, I call in sick," he says. It costs him more money to actually go to his "real job." "When I dupe," Smooth Criminal adds, "I farm billions on every game server and spread out my activities." He then uses three accounts to launder the gold: a duper account, a filter account, and a delivery accounteach created using different IPs, credit cards, and computers. This way, it's hard to trace the source, and the gold comes back clean.
-----------------------------
Yeah try tell the devs to catch guys like that??? Its clearly not as simple as many people think...
~Dunadurium
"Silly rabbit, WoW's for kids"
************************
I haven't done much posting here, but I have to say that I find the stance of mmorpg.com disturbing.
You'll only consider changing your stance if it is shown to be illegal? Let's just be glad that Abraham Lincoln didn't rest upon such a slippery slope.
How about we put aside all these weighty questions of morality and ethics related to the good of the game industry and keep it real simple.
Game company XYZ has it in their EULA that it is not okay to buy/sell/trade their virtual goods.
Secondary Market company ABC says they don't care what it says in the XYZ's EULA and profit from buying/selling/trading XYZ's virtual goods.
You can either support XYZ or ABC, but not both. Which do you choose? Well, since it really is about money, you choose ABC, right?
The reality is, I, and many others, are a fan of the games (including the game by XYZ), and not of the Secondary Market endeavors, nor of the MMORPG.com site specifically.
Setting precendents? mmorpg.com is setting the precedence of supporting for-profit breaking of EULAs.
When can I expect to see advertisements for server emulators here?
If Game Company XYZ has it in their EULA to dissallow the trade in their virtual goods, then it also strongly implies that they care about that trade. If they do indeed care about that trade more than they care about the size of their subscription base (which I strongly dispute) then they would take measures to stop that trade at its source.
For example, but not limited to :
Now thats what I just thought of off the top of my head. Devs with more experience in these systems and how they work than me could come up with heaps better solutions than my ham fisted rubbish. However their utter, utter lack of any movement toward developing systems to stem the tide from its source 100% confirms my contiunued assertion that the problem lies in the games.
If the games werent so mind numbingly boring and so completely geared toward item and money based advancement this problem would not exist.
Its like the Government supplying the population with heroin and then saying we are going to bust you for taking it. Its madeness.
MMORPG.com is using the revnue it makes from advertising this perfectly legal service to provide you with a forum to tell them you dont like their site.
The irony of that is not lost on me... its a shame its lost on you.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
[quote]Originally posted by Lepidus
[b]
Here is our stance on these ads and the reason for the board rules:
Board Rule: It exists because if we were to condone it, such as putting up a board for virtual trading, we would be providing people a forum through which they could make transactions. Thus, if party A is ripped off by party B on a board where we condone trading, then we run some risks that we would rather not run.
Advertisements: IGE's advertising contract with us has expired. In their place, we have this new campaign from the company you noticed. Also, as we accepted their bid to advertise with us, we are confident that this company employs adequate practices to ensure those who do wish to use their service get what they pay for.[/quote]
Please tell us how much of a bid does one need to have your advertisement space?
How long do the contracts go for? How long was IGE's former contract?
BTW, car ads do have a target market at your site. The majority of gamers are teens to 30ish. The prime car buying age. As long as car companies can afford your rates, why not?
I do agree on NOT allowing the dating ads. They take even more away from the feel of this site.
There MUST be other companies, brands, you could contact to fill your ad space. Do you even have a marketing department to contact other company advertising departments?
Sorry, but you are very [i][b]incorrect[/i][/b]. Mythic, the makers of Dark Age of Camelot, litterally DID sue into oblivion, one of the largest of these types of companies.
MMORPG companies DO have legal recourse. And yes it is illegal to do this in mmorpgs - IF the game makers deem it so. How much of a big or small part of each mmorpg is it? It's really a moot question, because by giving in to it "because it is a big part" actually helps make it a larger part of the mmorpgs which fuels the reason that "because it is a big part".
Back to my main reaons for posting - that YES there has been a legal case against these companies. A legal precident. Done by Mythic, who litterally sued one of the largest ones into litteral oblivion.
Journalistic sources have always moralized. It is known as making a judgement call. BTW the NY Times does filter out certain political parties - even though US law allows them to exist. But the NY Times considers itself a family paper, and does not support political extreemism, and thus filters out certain political ads. Heck the NY Times twice got take to the cleaners over its idea of "journalistic morality."
You moderators at MMORPG.com have to make your own judgement call/calls. And be willing to change your judgement calls, and/or accept whatever the consequences will/may be. IMHO you should look at the option of making more of an initiative to find another advertiser to buy up your ad contracts. Heck, post here or in a new thread what your requirements are, length of the contract, the fees you charge. Many of use here, including me, are connected to advertising. Many of us here work at real life jobs that could help you out.
agreed...
but not about abe...
lincoln didnt give a fuck about black people, he did everything he could to stop the war and keep blacks enslaved.
when the war couldnt be stopped, he made "freedom" and "suffrage" the poster boys for the conflict much like bush hypocritically uses "freedom" as his rationalization of "operation iraqi freedom" (hooray for euphuisms)
the best thing about mmo's is that it's another world where you arent perpetually kept down because of your poverty like in the real world, where you can actually do something about it.
selling items and money in game ruins this concept. it's no longer a game, it's another extension of the misery of capitalism
this would be my main objection to the exchange of game funs for real world currency
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
No, recording companies never did it to Napster. No one was doing anything, because it was a "new fronteier". Then the well known Heavy Metal -> Hard Rock -> Rock group [b][i]Metallica[/b][/i] stepped up, and used their OWN money to go after Napster. Metallica put out their own money to hire their own lawyers. And in the longrun Metallica won. It simply takes ONE, or a few, to start the snowball rolling. I still remember seeing the owner of Napster on TV crying over how he grew up with Metallica, how much he loved Metallica, and respected them, and whining over why one of his most favorite groups was now going after him.
So far Mythic, the makers of DAoC, has stepped up, and scored a MAJOR victory. They've started the snowball rolling. Who else will join Mythic? Who else will take the initiative?
We can debate this forever (and I encourage you to), but to me it comes back to a simple fact: by not taking an editorial side, we can actually debate the issue rationally. PC Gamer has lost that right. Anything they publish is just grinding in the axe on a stance they've already made clear.
Trust me, I understand the importance of this issue and over the next few weeks, you will see a lot of coverage on both sides of the issue. We've got Brad McQuaid commenting on our next podcast and I'm in the process of getting together an extremely interesting feature that really delves into the issue from both ends.
Part of having that liberty though is staying editorially neutral on what is still a grey area.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
W H O A H !!!!!!!
Veeery intresting post you made!!! Beyond thought provoking!!!
Vanguard is one of the most looked at games. There will definatly be future press releases, and interviews. Would MMORPG.com be willing to sacrifice future interviews if Brad McQuaid were to find out MMORPG.com now runs ads for companies that Brad is against?????
Hmmm.... and Hmmm.... again!!!
We make absolutely no secret of who advertises on our site. Every game you see featured is fully aware of any ads we run, including Sigil. We've covered them in the past and will do so in the future. They understand that our advertising and editorial departments do not influence each other.
We had IGE ads for over a year and now they are gone. We currently have MyVirtualTrader. As I said, we've always been quite up front about it. I mean really. It IS advertising afterall. Hard to hide
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Our position is no different than that of mainstream media when faced with similar situations. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it would apply.
Say the NY Times editors do not agree with the war in Iraq. In the next election, your Democrats run against war and the Republics run for war. Can the NY Times then decide because they morally do not agree with the war that they will only run advertisments for one political party?
Maybe the Washington Post then decides they do not agree with Nike's production practices overseas. Are they then allowed to only advertise Reebok shoes?
That is the reason for not making moral judgments when it comes to gold traders. Yes, it is not likely our advertisers will ever be on such important issues, but the principal still applies.
It is for that reason I think the PC Gamer decision is dangerous. They've set the precident and can now have any ads they publish called into question. It's a slippery slope.
These examples of yours are made moot by the fact that the NY Times, and other major newspapers do indeed put their weight behind political parties, etc... The NY Times for example, in the open, in their own paper, will tell if they support whatever Republican or Democrat is running for Mayor, or other position. Same with the Unions who will come out and say which politician they officially support.
The NY Times is a well known Liberal/Demorate slanting publication. The National Review is a well known Conservative/Republican slanting publication.
We really wish you would stop trying to use other publications as examples, and decide on your own what example you choose to set. What judgement calls you choose to make. BTW, again, the NY Times has been caught in some batant bad judgement calls, bad moral decisions, and even illegal activities. Yet another reason to NOT go "by what others do", but go by what your own compass tells you to do.
We are doing what our compass tells us. It just so happens there is a lot of precedent.
I'll add about the NY Times example, there is a difference between an editorial stance and flat out slanting your coverage. For example, whether or not they endorse people as a paper (a practice I do not personally like), they still show ads for all sides.
We've had writers go very strongly against this issue, as mentioned. If the article is well done and considers all arguments, we'll publish on either side. There is a far leap from that to saying that as an outlet we refuse to endorse an entire sector of the game industry and will not run their ads. At that point, the entire site is bias and we lose any realistic right to publish information on the topic.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
So if a game is poorly designed, it's appropriate to toss aside your explicit agreement and even further, encourage others to?
If a game is mind numbingly boring, you simply don't pay and don't play. How is that hard to understand?
I disagree, you have clearly taken an editorial side. mmorpg.com favors the secondary market, regardless of their honoring (or not) of the EULAs for various games, because the secondary market gives you cold hard cash.
In other words, they've bought you.
Regarding the other post concerning the service mmorpg.com provides. I no longer do anything on the site except visit this thread. Once I've grown bored of this thread, I'll remove mmorpg.com from my favorites if they are still supporting the secondary market.
No problem for me to understand thats why Im not currently playing any MMOs. The entire current crop are so boring and full of farmers that I cant understand why anyone would want to play them. But the difference is I dont blame 2nd and 3rd parties for a problem that begins and ends with the makers of the game.
If a game is so poorly designed that it makes it impossible for the company to police its OWN EULA.... then whos fault is that when people exploit it ?
I just cant understand why so many of you are foaming at the collective mouth at people 3 and 4 stages down the train of this issue. You should direct your teen angst at the source of the problem which is the game developers or your just wasting your breath.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
lol, My "teen angst" tells me that stopping this issue is not so simple as you make it out. I really find it funny how some people assume, no matter what, that everything bad in MMOs is the direct scheming and evil planning of the devs... Do you really think that all developers just care about money? Well maybe but most understand that a good product goes hand in hand with this.
When people are bashing on the DnL devs for instance, I sometimes even feel sorry for those guys. I mean, they were trying something completely revolutionary, and they obviously put a lot of heart into it. Its not like they were trying to make a bad game.. seriously, i don't get it when people bash these devs that are actually trying to move the genre forward.
The fact is that these games are so complex to make, and to predict all the different variables, that you can't make every feature work perfect. Just consider the social side of it.. its like a government: sure they "control" the state but they have no true control (only light sway) over how everything will run in the end and many times its a balancing act just like designing an mmo. Its not so cut and dry as many seem to presume. (buy or borrow Bartle's "designing virtual worlds" to really see what im talking about)
Bottom line: it is not so simple to stop the secondary market as you say and especially not by the devs alone. Look at that article i linked a couple posts back about asian farming rings. These guys are professional farmers, and know exactly what they are doing, and as such they don't make it so simple to catch them.
~Dunadurium
"Silly rabbit, WoW's for kids"
************************
I posit that you should. Consider that the driving motivator for any commercial organization is profit. If the secondary market increases sales of the games, then poor game design mechanics (from your perspective) are masked behind the financial success of the MMOs in question.
It doesn't matter how many people are complaining about the game, it really only matters how many people are paying for the game.
If folks have a strong opinion about a particular facet of the situation, that doesn't mean that they are ignoring all other facets.
The future: Adellion
Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually
Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants)
Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens)
Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)