Marshiro
   |
Posted - 2011.07.06 22:17:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Marshiro on 06/07/2011 22:17:44
 Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 05/07/2011 06:49:10
I have yet to see one single "shooting down" of that argument that is NEITHER based on sentiments/morals NOR based on the completely unwarranted assumption that MTs absolutely have to damage the existing game economy in any significant fashion regardless of implementation method (basically, the "slippery slope" argument that CCP would somehow have to end up altering pricing to get any sales to the level that would noticeably affect gameplay in a strong negative fashion).
....Does the purchaser of an item care how it was created ? NO. He only cares about the pricetag, in ISK (or RL-cash equivalent for the ISK, if he has to purchase the ISK for cash first).
Does the seller of an item care how it was created ? Only insofar as it matters for the amount of ISK he can get for it compared to how much time and/or ISK he paid to have it created.
Akita T, you are wrong. Not as a economist, but as a player of "role playing games." You do not and can not understand where the players are getting at if you stuck to your standard supply and demand models and not think about the SHEER ABSURDITY of spending money on internet space pixels when sisi is "that way."
To a role player, the ENTIRE logic of their behavior is based on sentiments and moral arguments. He would not behave the way he does if he does not, and he is almost immune to arguments to convert his world view. He also plays and dominate the population of MMORPG games and MUST be catered towards, "arguments be damned." To a roleplayer, the only acceptable economics theory is "labor theory of value", similar to what Marx (and he is wrong about reality) would think.
To a role player, the whole game world only has meaning as a result from the labor of other players, and he assign meaning to his own gameplay within this framework. Its literally a "sacred space" where the real world is excluded, and things like character trading and PLEXes are already annoying to those types of players, but at least they can convince themselves that some soul must have worked hard to obtain them and not feel too insulted. (the ones that stay in Eve as opposed to quit when plex was introduced anyways)
If you tie real money back to the equation, it breaks the immersion and the magic of a independent universe. Instead you replace the thinking with "oh, I make $2/hr playing Eve, and I destroy $0.50 worth of property per hours of pvp, and someone spending $5s will beat me with a bigger ship." For some players this is an acceptable way to think, for others it is just a utterly repulsive frame of mind completely lacking in the escape from reality they so crave.
Any attempt to change the game from the exclusive "labor theory of value", will meet with opposition. Gamers want to feel that all their massive effort in the game has meaning, and meaning beyond a pittance (relative to hours spent) on Ebay. If you tell them that their labor is only worth "so much in real terms" and ultimately the game gods can alter the world in ways their labor can not and they are ultimately irrelevant, they can not but feel offended. Gamers want a game to "work hard at", and the whole idea of making things easier for anyone for any reason is a insult.
Supply and demand have nothing to do with it. There is a reason why sisi is boring even though it is heaven to a economist. People do not "consume" goods in a virtual world, the only utility from those goods is a social construct and the culture and psychological framing have every effect on perceived value when it is indeed absolutely a social construct and social construct only.
|