Smedley is the new playerauctions

[El Gallo]

Well, it was a long time coming but I can't help but feel a little ill right now.  SoE will facilitate the exchange of in game items for money and take a little bit off the top.  I think this is a big enough issue to warrant a topic here rather than on the EQ2 forum.

http://stationexchange.station.sony.com/

Letter from Smed:

John Smedley Discusses Station Exchange

Hello Everyone,

We have a big announcement coming out in the press in the next day, and I wanted to make sure you heard it from me directly rather than reading an article about it.

Starting in late June, SOE will begin offering a new service called Station Exchange. This secure service will allow EverQuest II players on specific servers to buy and sell the right to use items, coin and characters. To be clear, all we are doing is facilitating these transactions. We are NOT in the business of selling virtual goods ourselves.

I'm sure this is going to come as a shock to many of you, since for the past six years, we have held the line in not allowing these sorts of things to occur. I'd like to explain the primary drivers for this change from our perspective:

First: It's obvious that a large percentage of our players either don't mind this activity or actively participate in it. We've done a fair amount of homework on this subject, and we believe this is a $200 million dollar market worldwide, and there are a huge number of our players taking part in the buying and selling of virtual goods. We have conducted polls, and the vast majority of players either doesn?t care about it or would like to participate in it. We believe that by allowing this to happen on select servers, we can have a solution for both the many players who want to participate in this and for those who don?t.

Second: Dealing with fraudulent transactions of one type or another takes up roughly 40% of our customer service people's time. We have players calling us up or requesting in-game service for activities related to these sorts of transactions constantly, even though they are specifically disallowed by our EULA. You may ask why the percentage is that high when it's not allowed in the first place? The answer is simple. Many times, people in these situations aren't up front with us about what actually happened. "My sword disappeared from my inventory" comes to mind, when what actually happened is the player has sold the item to someone else. Our CS people have to take the time to investigate this claim because if something legitimately happened, we of course want to take care of the player's needs. We believe that by taking this course, we will free up a great number of resources to deal with other things for our players.

Third: We see this as a potentially interesting model for future games. If we came up with a game specifically designed around these sorts of transactions, it might be pretty cool. Online gaming is always evolving, and we?re going to see how a sanctioned exchange service shakes out in EQII. From our perspective, it's always wise to keep pushing the envelope.

With the big reasons we're doing this laid out, I'd like to now tell you about the process:

On Wednesday, you'll see some press about Station Exchange. After about a week, we will conduct an in-game poll that's going to ask whether you:

1) Want to play on an "Exchange enabled" server
2) Do not want to play on an "Exchange enabled" server
3) Don't really care

Based on the results of this poll, we will light up a certain amount of new servers that are specifically "Exchange enabled." If the percentage of players who want this service is high enough, we might consider converting some existing servers to "Exchange enabled." Players who want to play on those servers will have the opportunity to transfer over to the "Exchange enabled" servers for free on a one-time-only basis (but you can't ever move that character off these servers). We will, of course, let people who don't want to stay on an "Exchange enabled" server off with a free transfer.

I want to be clear here: We will be lighting up a few new servers that are specifically ?Exchange enabled,? and the number of existing servers we convert to ?Exchange enabled? will be based on how many people actually want to be on "Exchange enabled" servers.

In addition to the issues listed above, you may ask, "What about farming?" The simple answer to this is that we're going to continue to heavily enforce the rules of EQ II, and those rules don't permit players to monopolize spawns or in any way harm the play experience of another player. We will continue to enforce these rules, but we also think that by allowing for a legitimate way for players to buy and sell virtual goods among themselves, there will be fewer problems on the non-Exchange servers.

I realize this is a lot to think about, and I expect a pretty good debate to start on this subject. We welcome all your feedback, as it will help determine the future of this service. All I ask is that you consider the fact that we're really addressing this problem in the best possible way for all sides of this issue.


John Smedley
President, Sony Online Entertainment"

found at http://www.fohguild.org/forums/showthread.php?s=f863fb00ba29f15f3653dba1577efc53&threadid=14361

[Shockeye]

Wow.

Just wow.

[schild]

That's awesome.

Fuck the middle man. Fuck him right in his ass.

Someone link to the DEN flash cartoon.

"The Middle Man" doesn't deserve attention.

[Stephen Zepp]

I was part of an incubator team that played around with this exact idea for about 6 months, but in the end we couldn't get the lawyers involved to buy off on not being exposed to too much risk.

Even if it's disclaimed, acknowledging the fact that your virtual objects have a monetary value by brokering the transactions is way outside of any legal precedents in online gaming, and it was too much of a risk at the time we considered it.

I do think that it's going to be very interesting to not only see how this works out, but also see any repercussions of the risk they (may be/are) taking on.

[Trippy]

Wow.

I agree -- wow.

[MaceVanHoffen]

Heh, I can see it now ... Imagine a team of intrepid explorers in Lower Guk.  The Ykesha drops.  The entire party rolls for the item, even those who cannot use it.  Those who can't use it demand to be on the roll because, "Dude, I can sell it on Sony's site so I should have a chance at it."  You can now add that lame excuse to the list of such great reasons as "My alt can use it" and "I can sell it for [in-game] gold."

I've come to hate all item-based MMO's for that reason (among others).  We really can't have nice things.

[Zane0]

At least EQII doesn't lead the market by example anymore, because then we'd be in a real fix.

I'm very concerned that this could be a slippery slope; limited-but-sanctioned trading one minute, and the next, everyone is buying their swords and armor with US dollars instead of, y'know, playing the game for them.  This is extremely contrary to immersion in every way, and a big problem for gameplay in general if it goes just a little too far.

Careful, EQII.  How far are you truly willing to go?

[Alkiera]

I was part of an incubator team that played around with this exact idea for about 6 months, but in the end we couldn't get the lawyers involved to buy off on not being exposed to too much risk.

Even if it's disclaimed, acknowledging the fact that your virtual objects have a monetary value by brokering the transactions is way outside of any legal precedents in online gaming, and it was too much of a risk at the time we considered it.

I do think that it's going to be very interesting to not only see how this works out, but also see any repercussions of the risk they (may be/are) taking on.

Then again, your company probably doesn't have the capital or legal team that Sony can bring to bear.  And really, I think this is good, as long as I'm not on such a server.  There are those who want to do that, more power to them.  Heck, people can go there and PL to 50 so they can sell the char for real money... but those people who buy them still have to play on that server.  Either way, I don't have to deal with them.

Sony might also be able to use this to hit the IGE-type places with some actual legal threats...  since SOE is now offering a legit means to do what they do illegally.

Alkiera

[Malderi]

Well, we can't accuse them of not being willing to innovate...

(although WoW's sub numbers might have something to do with that willingness...)

[Stephen Zepp]

It will be interesting to see what case law comes out of this for sure!

[Merusk]

Well, it was a good hobby while it lasted.

[StGabe]

Not surprised nor particularly worried.  Selling onlline goods has happened and will happen no matter what the companies do.  Might as well bring it in house.  I especially like the idea of setting aside certain servers to have this capability.  I think MMO's need to do more to delineate different rulesets and playstyles across servers of their game and this sounds like one good delineation.

In a few years Sony (or some other larger company, Achaea doesn't count :P) *will* start selling the items directly.  But then, hopefullly (and it will probably be in their best interests) they will continue to mark which servers do or not have this functionality.  Of course they'll try really hard to get you on the pay-for-item servers though. ;)

Isn't the market grand? :P

Gabe.

[TheWalrus]

  They should just cut to the chase, offer you a fully decked out character, at the highest uber level for a good hundred bucks or so.

 Except for what the fucks the point of playing the game if it's already been handed to you. Hm.

[Llava]

And the life of a professional MMOG player just became that much more viable.

I would like to see the legal results of this.

A bug in the game may have just cost you an item worth, say, $100.  This is Sony's error, faulty work on their part.  Their negligence impacted your income.  Will that get you around the EULA and into court?  Not likely.  But will it irritate them enough to get them to just "hand" you the item to get you to shut up?  Possibly.

Of course, one person isn't likely to sue for a hundred bucks.  But what about class action?  It could be historic.  The Sony Versus The WHY DOESN'T YOUR GAME FUCKING WORK Club Trial of 2006.

Of course, I haven't played EQ2.  Perhaps their customer service policies are different from other MMOGs and they actually will materialize equipment that you lost due to a bug for you.

[Alkiera]

Of course, I haven't played EQ2.  Perhaps their customer service policies are different from other MMOGs and they actually will materialize equipment that you lost due to a bug for you.

They have in the past.  Issues where certain items were just gone after a patch, due to changes to those items, after a further patch you could zone and have the items re-appear where they were before.  Or in your overflow slot.  I think maybe there were some done with GM supervision, too, I don't recall tho.

Alkiera

[Llava]

But what if you defeated a monster and SHOULD have received an item, but didn't?  Like for a quest, as an example, and you didn't get credit for defeating a raid monster and have to redo the whole thing.  There is now monetary accountability there.

All in all, though, I am in favor of it.  It's sort of like the drug thing- people are going to do it no matter how much you try to stop them, so you might as well regulate it for safety and to make a little profit off of it.

[Mesozoic]

Funny how SOE is capable of innovation only where cash money is involved.   Stormhammer, the Station Pass, /pizza, the tack-on fees for out-of-game chat client, and downloadable, paid mini-expansions also come to mind.

[Signe]

I know what's next.  Fruit machines, slot machines, poker machines, lottery tickets... all in game, charged to your CC, pay-outs virtual cash while you eat your pizza.  I wonder if they'll offer in game counselling for the gambling addicted kiddies?

[Mesozoic]

As an addendum to my smart-ass post above -

To me, the bottom line is this:  Design flaw ----> cash.

If a player in a deliberately item-centric game cannot acquire an item through the normal means, SOE gets money.  If SOE makes items harder to get and / or more necessary for play, they get more money.   At the same time, I have a hard time feeling bad for the players.  Given a wide choice of available MMOGs, they chose EQ. 

[El Gallo]

In a few years Sony (or some other larger company, Achaea doesn't count :P) *will* start selling the items directly. 

That day will probably be the end for me.  And that day is much closer now.


I don't think they will be able to keep this restricted to only a few servers, because that won't solve the problem.  I think that most people who e-bay don't want to be known as e-bayers.  Thus, they will stay on the "pure" servers and keep buying from Yantis & co, locking SoE out of that revenue stream (and keeping GMs busy with complaints) until they make all the servers "Exchange" servers.

[Fargull]

You can smell the catasses counting the money.

[kaid]

I can't say much against this plan. This crap is already occuring if Sony wants to screw the middle man and give a more safe secure way to do what people are already doing good for them. I have no intention of paying real cash for an item so this will have no effect on me one way or the other.

From the CS headachs the existing grey market player auction crap caused to the extra bling for doing it themselves it was only a matter of time before one of the major MMRPG did this.


kaid

[Special J]

If you can't beat 'em...join 'em

That's about what it comes down to. If you can't get rid of the practice that's generating a lot of revenue off your product, you may as well redirect that revenue stream to yourself.

I'll be interested in seeing just what kind of impact it will have on the game.  I don't think it will be good.

[Furiously]

While I don't think this is the ideal solution,which would be - we are aggressively going to go after these sites so they don't ruin the immersion of our games, I suppose it is a financially sound one.

It's going to be interesting to see how many more people join the market now, what in-game tools they offer. Why sell in-game now? Be interesting to see if they allow character selling as well. Buy a character + change name - sounds like good money making to me. Can't wait to hear about the first GM's getting busted for this buffing characters to sell.

Other though - So I vote no, SOE stay out of it on my server - and IGE/Yantis/ebay still will have auctions. Who will be the lesser evil? In my mind - it's SOE. So even though I don't like the idea - I still think most customers are served better by SOE offering the service then some 3rd party.

[jpark]

Well, it was a good hobby while it lasted.

lol.

I think there should be a new warning label for SOE products "Professional Players Only".

Or achievers.

[jpark]

In a few years Sony (or some other larger company, Achaea doesn't count :P) *will* start selling the items directly. 

That day will probably be the end for me.  And that day is much closer now.


I don't think they will be able to keep this restricted to only a few servers, because that won't solve the problem.  I think that most people who e-bay don't want to be known as e-bayers.  Thus, they will stay on the "pure" servers and keep buying from Yantis & co, locking SoE out of that revenue stream (and keeping GMs busy with complaints) until they make all the servers "Exchange" servers.

Very prescient - I agree.

Why sell in-game now?

Be interesting to see if they allow character selling as well. Buy a character + change name - sounds like good money making to me. Can't wait to hear about the first GM's getting busted for this buffing characters to sell.

Excellent point.

The value of virtual currency in the game is going to drop through the floor (inflation).  I can see zone shouts now for real dollars on items.  Screw platinum.

[Stephen Zepp]

Here is the scenario that killed the idea for my incubator team, more than anything else:

1) Your game is played out after 5-7 years, and you are no longer making money (in fact, you are -losing- money due to server infrastruture, assuming that costs have gone up but you haven't been able to raise prices successfully).

2) You decide to shut down the game entirely.

3) You get sued as a class action by the entire remaining player base, since if you shut down the game, you are destroying virtual net worth that they have in your game.

4) Since you have implicitly recognized the virtual net worth of items by brokering exchange of said items for "real" value, and charged a fee for it, it is legally apparent that you acknowledge the very claims the class action suit will be making against you.

So what do you do? :)

There's another one as well:

1) You recognize that a year down the road, a certain class simply is too over-powered, and make the decision that you must "nerf" that class in a few ways.

2) You get a class action suit by all players of that class, since you have now reduced their ability to gain virtual net worth in your environment arbitrarily (from a legal perspective--courts aren't going to be able to handle the concept of "game balance" for years and years IMO).

There simply is no case law on these types of things yet, but there are parallels in various trading markets (stock, futures, etc.) that may wind up applying. We just don't know, and neither does Sony.

[jpark]

You know, I utterly retract any suggestion I had in the past that CoH should introduce an economy into its game.

More generally - WoW included - are ecomomies viable in MMORPGs?  Is this sort of blantent trashing of immersion for a commission on more revenue inevitable?

[Sky]

Heh, I can see it now ... Imagine a team of intrepid explorers in Lower Guk.  The Ykesha drops.  The entire party rolls for the item, even those who cannot use it.  Those who can't use it demand to be on the roll because, "Dude, I can sell it on Sony's site so I should have a chance at it."  You can now add that lame excuse to the list of such great reasons as "My alt can use it" and "I can sell it for [in-game] gold."

I've come to hate all item-based MMO's for that reason (among others).  We really can't have nice things.

This sums up my feelings pretty well.

Is this sort of blantent trashing of immersion for a commission on more revenue inevitable?

Welcome to capitalism.

[jpark]

Hmm..

This is not an indictment of the viability of economies in MMORPGs or a feature that SOE honestly believes will enhance its sub base.  They have been patching very aggressively since launch - and I suspect they have not seen any change in sub numbers (increase) to suggest their current efforts will pay off.

This is a an effort to salvage a product that missed horribly ROI targets.  More cash needs to be generated - even at the expense of the longer term viability of the product, which at this point looks pretty bleak (speculation).

[AOFanboi]

I wonder: Since you now have a situation where a random mob drop can be sold for cash with the company providing the game knowing this, doesn't that not make it gambling, and hence illegal in states/countries which outlaw such?

Death to EQ2 predicted! News at server maintenance start!

[Toast]

This is so awesome. I can't wait to see what happens.

++Drama

[MaceVanHoffen]

I have no intention of paying real cash for an item so this will have no effect on me one way or the other.

Yes it will.

For one, getting into groups and raids in EQ often hinges on the items one has.  Heck, there are guilds out there who recruit people with certain items, not just epic weapons either.  Have fun trying to get into either a group or a raid when you're inventory now depends on how much real-world cash you've spent.  You could say, "I won't take part in that."  Ok, great.  You can go to Lower Guk while the dollarized characters get to see all the pretty planar content.

Another, effect:  getting items that drop.  Since real-world cash is now involved, there is now no reason that players will accept for not being in the roll for every single item.  A player can always say, "I can't use those bard drums, but I can sell them."  It was bad before, but now it's officially sanctioned.  Trying to get that neato warrior sword?  Great.  You get to put up with the lag from 50 other assholes while at the same time putting up with each and every one of them demanding a shot at the item you're working hard to get.

As if those reasons weren't bad enough, here's another:  Twinks.  Don't twink with real-world cash, so that won't affect you, right?  Wrong.  Well-equipped characters can displace you in EQ.  A powergroup of real-world cash outfitted characters, who are playing for profit not for fun, can easily sweep a dungeon hunting for loot and run roughshod over "normally-equipped" characters, like yourself for example.  "Oh, but I can petition that, right?"  Yeah, go for it.  The GMs will respond at some point in the distant future when all the players involved have moved on to something else.

This affects everyone.  It affects everyone currently in subtle ways, since players could not openly admit to this behavior.  But SOE providing an official channel just takes it mainstream and will inevitably make it much more common and visible to the average gamer.

[Toast]

You can choose to play on a non-Exchange server. Don't like it? Don't roll a character there.

Those against buying and selling will probably benefit from less farmers as the market for virtual goods will decline on the non-Exchange servers.

[MaceVanHoffen]

Those against buying and selling will probably benefit from less farmers as the market for virtual goods will decline on the non-Exchange servers.

Doubtful.  All the same extra-SOE channels still exist, so why wouldn't players still use them on non-Exchange servers?  Those channels have established communities and well-known players who broker deals.

This kind of thing has been affecting people for a long time, it just hasn't been in-your-face obvious during gameplay because people couldn't discuss it openly.  That will still be the situation on the non-Exchange servers.  All SOE has done is provide an additional channel to do what people have done (and will still do) via other means.