[MUD-Dev] Are eBay sales more than just a fad?

[Joe Andrieu]

Madman Across the Water wrote:
> Perhaps my issue is this- there is a one to one correspondence between
> time you spend playing and, equivalently, time that passes in the game
> for your character. Maybe I find making one to other out of game factors
> seems artificial? I was going to say that there is no one to one between
> outside money and anything in the game, but there COULD be- you could
> make $1 = 300gp flat out.

(actually, there is no reason for monetary exchange to be fixed--look at
the International money market)

Hmmm... there is not a one to one correspondence in time.  The "time"
required in-game to do various things is not the same as the equivalent
action would take in RL.  Games use time as a means of *constructed*
reality. It is one of the handles you can manipulate to balance game
mechanics.

What I'm challenging is the notion that time is some special, privileged
currency that democratizes and creates a fair playing field.  Time is just
one of many resources that can be enabled by designers as a actionable
asset for players to bring into the game.  Others include twitch reflexes,
expertise (at puzzle solving or role playing or whatever), social skills,
negotiating skills, leadership skills, strategic/combat skills, economic
management skills.  More concrete resources include cash, bandwidth, (low)
latency, graphics capability, interface hardware, etc.  *All* of these are
means that designers (intentionally or not) enable players to utilize (or
be limited by) their personal RL assets.

Good designers often work hard to minimize the effects of disparity between
a select few of these RL assets while providing a playground for the other
assets to be explored.

Historically, computer games have been designed by and for gamers and as
such give bias to the assets that gamers have in abundance, while
minimizing the impact of assets in which they are lacking. Given that
gamers have time for games, but not wads of cash lying around, it is easy
to see how history has led to games based on time as the primary currency
while eschewing cash (with the exception of our favorite money grubbing
capitalist Matt).

If you want to reach beyond the gamer audience towards wider, more
mainstream players, you've got to build other currencies into the game.

> Another random thought I had, which I will offer just for your
> amusement, is this: the rich guy wants to have the same advantage in
> game as the guy with all the time, right? If we're going to introduce
> out of game factors into this, why not take more out of game things into
> account and acknowledge that, out of game, the rich guy is probably
> doing better than the guy spending his days on MUDs.

Hmmm... that assumes a pretty materialistic value system.  The rich guy
*could* be living a frustrated, unhappy, morally decrepit, lonely, corrupt,
unsatisfying life.

The way to look at it is, actually, how do I offer an entertaining
experience to *more* people, given the natural constraints of their
lifestyle?  Time-based game mechanics leave out 90% of the population who
aren't willing to spend hours killing rats just so they can graduate to
killing snakes as they work their way up the time economy ladder.

> It seems the conclusion I can draw is that there is a limit to the
> amount of fiction breaking that some people are willing to accept, and
> this limit varies wildly from person to person (to the point of being
> non-existent for some of the "It's only a game!" people). Mine just
> happens to fall on this side of RL money. The points about other pieces
> of fiction breaking are good ones, and an argument could be made that
> those are commonplace, and so people are used to them and accept them.
> In 5 years, I'll look back and see if the spending of RL money has
> entered that category.

This I totally agree with. Different people have different requirements for
suspension of disbelief. What I find myself challenging (in many
conversations--not just this one) is what actually breaks the illusion for
the player?  The current gameplay will evolve, in fact, *must* evolve to
expand the player base.  As such, sacred cows like time-based economies are
easy targets because of the hidden assumption propping up what should
really be a design decision about what resources the players bring into the
game.

I bet that when we look back in 2005 we are going to see so many
innovations in this space that paying for items or skills is one of the
minor footnotes.

-j


--
Joe Andrieu
Realtime Drama

joe at andrieu.net
+1 (925) 973-0765






_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev