[MUD-Dev] BIZ: Ban selling of in-game items for real cash?

[Kwon J. Ekstrom]

Tess Snider wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2004, Yumiko wrote:

> I'm generally opposed to ever acknowledging any monetary value in
> virtual goods, whatsoever, for liability reasons, but nonetheless,

I'm opposed to selling in-game items for different reasons.  I don't
believe it's a liability if the buyer understands that their
purchase is subject to the same rules as normal items.  As Matt
pointed out, it's about setting expectations.

>> I'll throw out a couple of ideas for you.  Kwon's idea of making
>> items less effective in other hands is intriguing.  Other
>> possibilities might include one of the following:

Thanks, I dislike "banning" practices from players... doing so
always increases admin overhead with little/no real gain.  I find
that players react better to systems that discourage an action than
an outright ban.

>   1.) These special items decay when they are no longer in the
>   hands of their original owners.

*nod* I suggested that any damage the objects take when not in the
"owners" hands be irrepairable.  This has a similar effect.  IMHO,
this is better than simply reducing stats.  While the player has the
"full" effect of the item, their purchase is temporary.  It also
removes any resale items from the game pool preventing them from
becoming an on-going issue.

>   2.) Donors can only give their special items to other donors.

This would probably have a short-term gain in donations, but most
players would only be donating to meet the minimum requirements, so
it may hurt long-term cash-flow.

>   3.) Players can only trade away a special item if they receive a
>   special item of comparable in-game value in the transaction.

This would be a real pain in the ... to keep track of.  Considering
that in any good system, value is relative.

>   4.) Use Kwon's idea of making the item less powerful in a new
>   set of hands, BUT enable players to reactivate capabilities
>   through a small donation. You can say that the item needs to be
>   "attuned" to the new character, before it can achieve its full
>   capabilities.

Combined with #1, this would act as a transfer fee.  When the item
is in the possession of anyone but it's owner, it is subject to
decay.  You then need to purchase the right to "keep" the item from
the game owners.

It would also be possible to determine whether an item was "given"
to a player or "stolen/looted".  The way you would handle the item
should be different in either case.

IMHO, I believe that anything that can happen to a normal item
should apply to purchased items.  However for looted/stolen items,
the transfer fee should be higher, and the original owner should not
be required to pay a transfer fee if they can get their item back.

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