Surprised it took this long (NCcoin)

[Merusk]

They went after the banks in the US. US Banks aren't supposed to allow transactions with any online casino.  I just read about how It's still unenforceable, since folks who want to gamble just use a middleman service now.  You can't stop teh internets.

[Numtini]

It was enough to get Second Life to ban gambling.

[Mrbloodworth]

It is?  Interesting, wonder how they get around the ban of online casinos in the US now.

I don't know, but it has always been listed as an online casino, not a game. It operated out of like Sweden or some shit with 2-3 banks backing/providing service for it. I think you can even get a credit card that pull directly from your in game casino bank account.

EDIT: You know what, they changed the terms of use on me. It isn't an "online casino" anymore, at least according to them.

2. Description
MindArk provides the Entropia Universe as a service, described as a virtual universe. The Entropia Universe is not a "game".


17. Rules of Conduct
p. Gambling activities are expressly forbidden in the Entropia Universe.

Link

maybe thats how, by changing the classification.

[sinij]

I am looking forward to having to declare my Epics on my tax forms.

[tmp]

I am looking forward to having to declare my Epics on my tax forms.

On the upside you might be able to list repair costs as expenses.

[Venkman]

No doubt. And taken the next step:

Your computer purchase, maintenance and repairs are business expenses.
As is the legitimate % of your domicle in which conduct said business.
As does the travel mileage for going to the store for computer stuff, fedex costs, software costs, etc.

[Lantyssa]

Your computer purchase, maintenance and repairs are business expenses.
As is the legitimate % of your domicle in which conduct said business.
As does the travel mileage for going to the store for computer stuff, fedex costs, software costs, etc.

I'll need to spend more time gaming.  Good thing I can work from home, too.  That'll make computer use for business purposes 100%.

[Sir T]

Reading this reminds me that someone payed $1000 for a 135 million year old lump of dinosaur crap.

[gryeyes]

I would think that game developers would be fairly nervous about putting monetary value on virtual items, at least in the west. Pretty sure its just a matter of time before property laws start getting applied to virtual items. Dont see how one can sell a virtual item for a set monetary price and not fall under some form of property laws/tax. EULA saying that we will be sold items that you still wont own doesn't seem particularly legal. How fucked would MMO developers be if they had to legally justify banning accounts or changing any items?

[tmp]

How fucked would MMO developers be if they had to legally justify banning accounts or changing any items?

banning accounts -- happens when contract between the user and service provider is broken by the user.
changing items -- the online gameplay experience may change, standard part of said contract.

[UnSub]

EULA saying that we will be sold items that you still wont own doesn't seem particularly legal.

It could be set up a hire / leasing system, valid only within the realms of the game.

Like how I can go down and hire paintball equipment to run around the local paintball centre, but can't take that equipment outside since it isn't really mine.

[Merusk]

How fucked would MMO developers be if they had to legally justify banning accounts or changing any items?

banning accounts -- happens when contract between the user and service provider is broken by the user.
changing items -- the online gameplay experience may change, standard part of said contract.

Except if those items have a monetary value associated with them, you've deliberately lowered the value of that item after the original purchase was made.   It's like you bought a V6 and the auto company decided that was no good, and came over to your place and replaced it with a 4-cylinder. 

Games can get away with this because they are games.  You are paying to access the game world, and anything outside of that is your own damn fault.  As SOON as the company itself begins selling items they are a retailer and a whole new set of rules applies.

[Venkman]

This has been one of the core arguments against legal RMT, the shackles it places on otherwise legitimate game development practices.

These games change all the time. They need to so we keep paying our fees and buying expansions. If the games were static, they'd peak and only ever decline thereafter.

That's why we see that even the microtrans games mostly sell decorations and buffs. Companies don't sell the equivalent of WoW Tier 6 gear. It's the main way to avoid such issues.

[UnSub]

It's the main way to avoid such issues.

It isn't really avoiding the issue so much as sticking their head in the sand and pretending it isn't an issue. There are already MMOs out there with official microtrans / RMT channels in place.

Also, I don't think that legislators are going to carve out a distinction between in-game cosmetic bonnets or in-game +6 Vorpal Great-Axes if you sell either through RMT.

[tmp]

Except if those items have a monetary value associated with them, you've deliberately lowered the value of that item after the original purchase was made.   It's like you bought a V6 and the auto company decided that was no good, and came over to your place and replaced it with a 4-cylinder. 

Yes, but you are told explicitly it can happen before you make the purchase. If knowing this you're still willing to shell out the money, you can't complain when it does actually happen, as you've made informed decision to form the contract with the seller.

If you want to use that RL analogy -- the V6 you bought won't last in pristine condition until the power that be decides to pull the plug on the universe server. It doesn't cause people to sue manufacturers over the wear and tear down the road, does it?

[Venkman]

It isn't really avoiding the issue so much as sticking their head in the sand and pretending it isn't an issue. There are already MMOs out there with official microtrans / RMT channels in place.

Err, "avoiding the issue" is "sticking their head in the sand". Maybe the better way to say it is "staying under the radar". The goal here is to prevent enough consumer complaints so that it doesn't get elevated. Not like legislators are going to start playing MMOs en masse. They way for a crescendo of complaints, usually first from people talking about it enough that the media picks it up.

Think along the aligns of a few people "losing millions of dollars because a game company changed their game". And then realize that's already happened in Second Life and legislators aren't clamoring for heads. It needs to be in a world(s) the average person has heard about and maybe experience.

Also, I don't think that legislators are going to carve out a distinction between in-game cosmetic bonnets or in-game +6 Vorpal Great-Axes if you sell either through RMT.

If it gets to that point, I suspect they actually will, because it'll be the game companies helping them map the legislation.

[Lantyssa]

Real life companies are already free to change their prices as they want.  They have constraints such as not wanting to sell below cost, taxes, and wanting to make a profit, however they can do it.

Game companies cannot afford to fluctuate the prices wildly since people want confidence in what they are buying.  It's within their rights though, so talk of legal action is a little silly if it's just about devaluing the price of an item over time.

[CharlieMopps]

Also, I don't think that legislators are going to carve out a distinction between in-game cosmetic bonnets or in-game +6 Vorpal Great-Axes if you sell either through RMT.

the difference being, a cosmetic item, is just that... cosmetic. It's like selling a hat.  But any item that makes it easier to accumulate more money/items that have real world value... now you have the mmo company manipulating the market. And if the MMO developer has openly embraced the idea that its fake money/items equal real money/items... now they are manipulating real market trends and are subject to all the tangled web of laws that govern such markets.

MMO economy's are not real, not anywhere near being sophisticated enough to handle real market trends, and will fail almost instantly if they even tried. If they want their money to = real money, they have to have a real economy and lose control of the very money hat the tried to create in the first place. So, either they keep it as monopoly money, and retain control of the market... or they make it real money, and let it be a real market. It can't be both.

[gryeyes]

How fucked would MMO developers be if they had to legally justify banning accounts or changing any items?

banning accounts -- happens when contract between the user and service provider is broken by the user.
changing items -- the online gameplay experience may change, standard part of said contract.

Most ToS reserve the right to ban you for any reason what so ever. Start placing monetary value on specific items outside of a "service" and eventually laws dictating rights and ownership of virtual property in MMO's will be established. You really think it would just be an ambiguous grey area of law in the US forever? A corporation reserves the right to devalue and destroy items you have purchased? It not being well defined up till now can be chalked up to the Western market of MMO's being tiny. But now with hundreds of millions being raked in by WoW its just a matter of time.

Id imagine this is also why a corporation like vivendi hasnt attempted to fight RMT on a large scale. Fear of forcing legislation that will fuck them.

[Tmon]

Darniaq is correct, when the time comes that laws must be written governing virtual worlds and the goods and services that exist in them the game companies will be doing the drafting.  Actually the lobbyists that they've hired will be making suggestions and such but it boils down to the same thing.

[tmp]

You really think it would just be an ambiguous grey area of law in the US forever? A corporation reserves the right to devalue and destroy items you have purchased?

Considering it's spelt out to potential customer, what exactly is grey about it though? It can probably be argued it has to be really dumb customer to enter a contract of this kind, but then intelligence of customer (or lack thereof) is not the concern of the corporation.

To put it in another way, they are selling products with no warranty and stress the fact that longevity of the item is undetermined. As far as law is concerned the items receive implied warranty of merchantibility and fitness, but these are promises about the condition of products at the time they're sold, and don't assure that the product will last for any specific length of time.

[gryeyes]

You really think it would just be an ambiguous grey area of law in the US forever? A corporation reserves the right to devalue and destroy items you have purchased?

Considering it's spelt out to potential customer, what exactly is grey about it though? It can probably be argued it has to be really dumb customer to enter a contract of this kind, but then intelligence of customer (or lack thereof) is not the concern of the corporation.

To put it in another way, they are selling products with no warranty and stress the fact that longevity of the item is undetermined. As far as law is concerned the items receive implied warranty of merchantibility and fitness, but these are promises about the condition of products at the time they're sold, and don't assure that the product will last for any specific length of time.

I can make a "ToS/EULA" stipulating any number of illegal or non-binding things. Still wont make a remote difference in it being legal or not. If you think a company can sell a product to a customer while removing all rights of ownership you are sadly mistaken. Yes i sell a product with a self destruct mechanism that i detonate whenever i wish and no laws govern my actions nor the customers rights of ownership....please.

[tmp]

If you think a company can sell a product to a customer while removing all rights of ownership you are sadly mistaken.

They'll call it licensing, not selling; like they've been calling it for the last 20 years or so?

Yes i sell a product with a self destruct mechanism that i detonate whenever i wish and no laws govern my actions nor the customers rights of ownership....please.

When was last time someone sued a company for providing trial software that ceases to exist after specific time, and won? If you "bought" say, 7 day xp buff for your character, would you sue the company after that time when the buff disappears? The "sale" of other items is very much the same, except in case of these the guaranteed period of functionality is zero and the practical period of use is undetermined. You know what you buy, if you don't like the product, you vote with your money and simply not buy it. The customer rights etc generally aim to protect the customer from buying the snake oil that is sold with promise it'll work, not the one that's sold with clear disclaimer "won't do shit".

edit: incidentally, that 'limited period' model would be probably about perfect to avoid most of the legal trouble. Rather than "sell" people items, "rent" them instead for short, renewable periods.

[gryeyes]

Thats alot of text that really has nothing to fucking do with anything being discussed. And is pretty irrelevant since the people that currently allow the sale/exchange of virtual property do in fact get sued over ownership of said property.

Its that MMO corporations would be selling a virtual "product" instead of a "service" as they currently spin it now. To avoid the very issue we are discussing.